UNIVERSITY  OF 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

AT  UnJANA-CHAMPAIGN 

ILL  HIST.  SURVEY 


THE   LOEB-LEOPOLD   CASE 


PHILOSOPHY 

From  a  Copley  Print  ...  by  Puvis  de  Chavannes 

Copyright  by  Curtis  is"  Cameron,  Publishers,  Boston 


THE 

LOEB-LEOPOLD   CASE 

WITH  EXCERPTS  FROM  THE  EVIDENCE  OF 

THE  ALIENISTS  AND  INCLUDING  THE 

ARGUMENTS  TO    THE   COURT   BY 

COUNSEL   FOR    IHE   PEOPLE 

AND  THE   DEFENSE 


PHILOSOPH'^tp^S 


BRLT^SWICK.  GA. 

CLASSIC  PUBLISHING  CO. 
1926 


From  a  L,). 

Copyri,; 


»,  Publishers,  Boston 


THE 

LOEB-LEOPOLD    CASE 

WITH  EXCERPTS  FROM  THE  EVIDENCE  OF 

THE  ALIENISTS  AND  INCLUDING  THE 

ARGUMENTS  TO  THE   COURT   BY 

COUNSEL   FOR  THE    PEOPLE 

AND  THE    DEFENSE 


BY 

ALVIN  V.   SELLERS 


BRUNSWICK,  GA. 

CLASSIC  PUBLISHING  CO. 
1926 


COPYRIGHT,    1926, 
BY  ALVIN  V.   SELLERS 


PRINTED  IN  THE  U.S.A. 


-^.u 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Philosophy Frontispiece 

The  Loeb-Leopold  Case ii 

Speech  of  Thomas  Marshall 41 

Speech  of  Joseph  P.  Savage 62 

Speech  of  Walter  Bachrach      90 

Speech  of  Clarence  Darrow      118 

Speech  of  Benjamin  C.  Bachrach 214 

Speech  of  Robert  E.  Crowe 233 


THE   LOEB-LEOPOLD   CASE 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

ON  July  21,  1924,  in  the  criminal  court  room 
of  Cook  County,  Illinois,  when  the  case  of 
the  People  vs.  Richard  A.  Loeb  and  Nathan 
F.  Leopold,  Jr.,  was  called,  Clarence  Darrow,  repre- 
senting the  defendants,  arose,  and  addressing  Chief 
Justice  John  R.  Caverley,  presiding,  said: 

Your  Honor,  we  have  determined  to  withdraw  our  pleas  of 
not  guilty  and  enter  pleas  of  guilty.  We  dislike  to  throw  this 
burden  upon  this  court  or  any  court.  We  know  its  serious- 
ness and  its  gravity.  And  while  we  wish  it  could  be  other- 
wise we  feel  that  it  must  be  as  we  have  chosen. 

The  statute  provides,  your  Honor,  that  evidence  may  be 
offered  in  mitigation  of  the  punishment,  and  we  shall  ask  at 
such  time  as  the  court  may  direct  that  we  be  permitted  to 
offer  evidence  as  to  the  mental  condition  of  these  young  men, 
to  show  the  degree  of  responsibility  they  had,  and  also  to 
offer  evidence  as  to  the  youth  of  these  defendants,  and  the 
fact  of  a  plea  of  guilty  as  a  further  mitigation  of  the  penalty 
in  this  case.  With  that  we  throw  ourselves  upon  the  mercy 
of  this  court  and  this  court  alone. 

Young  Loeb  and  Leopold  had  —  just  two  months 
before  —  kidnaped  and  killed  still  younger  Robert 
Franks.  All  were  sons  of  wealthy  parents,  and  all 
residents  of  Chicago,  where  the  crime  was  com- 
mitted.   The  slayers  were  college  graduates. 

II 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

After  the  boy  was  murdered  and  his  body  hid  in 
a  culvert,  Leopold  telephoned  to  the  home  of  Jacob 
Franks,  father  of  Robert.  To  the  mother,  who 
answered  the  call,  Leopold  said:  "  This  is  George 
Johnson;  your  son  has  been  kidnaped;  don't  worry; 
details  later." 

Early  next  morning  the  following  letter  was 
received  at  the  Franks  home,  addressed  to  Jacob 
Franks: 

Dear  Sir: 

As  you  no  doubt  know  by  this  time  your  son  has  been 
kidnaped.  Allow  us  to  assure  you  that  he  is  at  present  well 
and  safe.  You  need  not  fear  any  physical  harm  for  him  pro- 
viding you  live  up  carefully  to  the  following  instructions  and 
such  others  as  you  will  receive  by  future  communications. 
Should  you,  however,  disobey  any  of  our  instructions,  even 
slightly,  his  death  will  be  the  penalty. 

1.  For  obvious  reasons  make  absolutely  no  attempt  to 
communicate  with  either  the  police  authorities  or  any  private 
agency.  Should  you  already  have  communicated  with  the 
police,  allow  them  to  continue  their  investigations,  but  do  not 
mention  this  letter. 

2.  Secure  before  noon  today  $10,000.  This  money  must 
be  composed  entirely  of  old  bills  of  the  following  denomina- 
tions: $2,000  in  $20  bills,  $8,000  in  $50  bills.  The  money 
must  be  old.  Any  attempt  to  include  new  or  marked  bills 
will  render  the  entire  venture  futile.  The  money  should  be 
placed  in  a  large  cigar  box  or,  if  such  is  impossible,  in  a 
heavy  cardboard  box  securely  closed  and  wrapped  in  white 
paper.  The  wrapping  paper  should  be  sealed  and  all  openings 
with  sealing  wax. 

3.  Have  the  money  thus  prepared  as  directed  above  and 
remain  home  after  one  o'clock  p.m.  See  that  the  telephone 
is  not  in  use.  You  will  receive  a  future  communication  in- 
structing you  as  to  your  future  course.    As  a  final  word  of 

12 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

warning,  this  is  a  strictly  commercial  proposition,  and  we  are 
prepared  to  put  our  threats  into  execution  should  we  have 
reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  you  have  committed  an 
infraction  of  the  above  instructions.  However,  should  you 
carefully  follow  out  our  instructions  to  the  letter,  we  can 
assure  you  that  your  son  will  be  safely  returned  to  you 
within  six  hours  of  our  receipt  of  the  money. 

Yours  truly, 

George  Johnson, 

A  few  hours  later  the  father  was  called  by  tele- 
phone and  told  to  go  to  a  designated  drug  store 
with  the  money,  where  he  would  again  be  called  and 
given  further  instructions. 

He  did  not  go,  for,  in  the  meantime,  the  dead 
body  of  his  boy  had  been  found  in  the  culvert.  It 
developed  that  he  was  to  have  been  directed  to  go 
immediately  from  the  drug  store  to  the  Illinois 
Central  Station  and  get  aboard  a  certain  train  and 
in  the  telegraph  blank  rack  of  a  certain  Pullman 
car  he  would  find  a  letter  giving  directions  to  be 
obeyed. 

This  letter  was  in  a  plain  envelope,  addressed  to 
"  Mr.  Jacob  Franks."  Written  on  the  envelope  were 
these  words:  "Should  anyone  else  find  this  note, 
please  leave  it  alone,  the  letter  is  very  important." 
The  letter  read  as  follows: 

Dear  Sir: 

Proceed  immediately  to  the  back  platform  of  the  train, 
watch  the  east  side  of  the  track,  have  your  package  ready, 
look  for  the  first  LARGE  red  brick  factory  situated  im- 
mediately adjoining  the  tracks  on  the  east.  On  top  of  this 
factory  is  a  large  black  water  tower  with  the  word  CHAM- 

13 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

PION  written  on  it.    Wait  until  you  have  completely  passed 

the  south  end  of  the  factory,  count  five  very  rapidly  and 

then  immediately  throw  the  package  as  far  east  as  you  can. 

Remember,  this  is  the  only  chance  to  recover  your  son. 

Yours  truly, 

George  Johnson. 

Near  the  culvert  where  the  body  was  found  was 
also  found  a  pair  of  eyeglasses.  From  the  records 
of  the  only  concern  in  Chicago  handling  them  it  was 
learned  that  three  prescriptions  had  been  filled 
calling  for  that  particular  kind  of  glasses.  One  was 
for  a  prominent  lawyer  of  the  city,  who  was  then 
out  of  town;  another  was  for  a  lady,  who  had  hers 
on;  the  other  was  for  young  Leopold,  who,  upon 
first  being  questioned,  stated  that  his  glasses  were 
at  his  home.  Upon  being  unable  to  find  them  there 
he  said  that  he  had  not  worn  them  for  a  long 
time  and  that  he  had  taken  many  strolls  through 
the  section  by  the  culvert  and  must  have,  on 
one  of  such  occasions,  dropped  them  from  his 
pocket. 

It  was  soon  seen,  however,  that  he  and  Loeb, 
who  also  had  been  taken  into  custody  when  it  was 
learned  he  and  Leopold  were  together  on  the  day 
that  Bobby  Franks  was  kidnaped,  were  making 
false  and  contradictory  statements.  They  continued 
to  be  questioned  and  proofs  of  their  falsehoods 
shown  them.  It  was  not  long  before  both  confessed 
and  gave  in  detail  the  story  of  this  deed  of  death 
that  stirred  a  world. 

At  the  "  trial  "  the  defense  asked  life  imprison- 

14 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

ment  while  the  State  insisted  on  the  maximum 
penalty  of  death. 

The  State  introduced  the  evidence  of  eighty-one 
witnesses  —  and  rested.  Every  incriminating  fact 
was  proved,  as  being  relevant  on  the  question  of 
"  aggravation." 

Then  the  defense  began,  with  its  evidence  of 
"  mitigation,"  followed  by  rebuttal  evidence  on  the 
part  of  the  State.  The  defense,  though  not  dis- 
claiming legal  responsibility,  urged,  nevertheless, 
that  the  mental  condition  of  the  defendants  was  a 
mitigating  circumstance.  This  the  State  vigorously 
controverted.  Some  excerpts  from  the  evidence  are 
given  here.     It  would  take  volumes  to  include  it  all. 

Dr.  W.  A.  White  was  the  first  witness  for  the 
defense.    He  said  in  part: 

We  can  only  understand  this  homicide  by  understanding 
the  back  and  forth  play  of  these  two  personalities  as  they 
are  related  to  each  other.  Now,  Dickie  Loeb,  with  his  feel- 
ing of  inferiority,  developed  certain  anti-social  tendencies 
which  are  characterized  to  a  certain  extent  to  compensate 
him  personally,  but  which  are  disintegrating  and  socially  de- 
structive, namely,  his  criminalistic  tendencies.  He  develops 
these  tendencies  as  being  the  head  of  a  gang  because,  obvi- 
ously, it  is  not  half  as  satisfying  to  an  individual  to  be  a 
great  man  in  secret.  Dickie  needed  an  audience.  In  his 
fantasies,  the  criminalistic  gang  was  his  audience.  In  real- 
ity, Babe  Leopold  was  his  audience.  Babe  is  generally  the 
slave  in  the  situation.  But  he  is  a  powerful  slave,  who  makes 
Dickie  king,  so  that  in  either  position  he  occupies,  as  the  king 
or  slave,  he  gets  the  expression  of  both  components  of  his 
make-up.  All  of  Dickie's  life  has  been  in  the  direction  of 
self-destruction.  He  has  often  considered  suicide.  He  told 
me  he  had  lived  his  life  out,  come  to  its  logical  conclusion. 

IS 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Babe,  on  the  other  hand,  has  the  definitely  constructive  capa- 
cities of  an  intellectual  character. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  Franks  homicide  can  be  explained 
without  an  understanding  of  this  relation.  Babe  would  not 
have  entered  it  alone,  because  he  had  no  criminalistic  ten- 
dencies, as  Dickie  did.  Dickie  would  never  have  gone  as  far 
as  he  did  without  Babe  to  give  that  final  push. 

Dr.  White  said  that  in  his  opinion  neither  Loeb 
nor  Leopold  was  normal.    Of  Loeb  he  further  said: 

He  was  the  host  of  an  infantile  emotional  make-up  which 
was  a  long  way  from  the  possibility  of  functioning  harmoni- 
ously with  his  developed  intelligence.  He  was  going  in  the 
direction  of  a  split  personality,  because  of  this  irmer,  unre- 
solved conflict.  It  was  that  type  of  a  personality,  related  as 
I  have  described  to  Babe,  that  came  to  this  final  issue  on 
May  21,  1924. 

Q.  In  your  opinion  was  his  mental  condition  on  the  21st 
of  May  normal  or  otherwise? 

A.  Decidedly  otherwise.  He  is  still  a  little  child  talking 
to  his  Teddy  bear. 

Extracts  from  the  cross-examination  of  the  witness 
by  State's  Attorney  Crowe  follow: 

Q.  Now,  doctor,  you  said  that  young  Loeb  had  no  definite 
object  in  life,  but  he  had  decided  to  be  a  master  criminal. 
He  made  a  pretty  fair  success  of  that  until  the  glasses  were 
dropped,  didn't  he? 

A.  I  don't  know  if  we  can  talk  of  such  a  thing  as  being 
successful;  he  made  a  sad  mess  of  his  Hfe,  either  whether  he 
was  caught  or  not. 

Q.  If  the  glasses  had  not  been  found,  and  the  State's 
Attorney  had  not  secured  a  confession,  do  you  think  these 
boys  would  have  gone  right  along  committing  other  crimes? 

A.  I  suspect  they  might  have  probably  done  so.  I  do  not 
see  any  reason  why  they  would  not. 

16 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Q.  Now,  which  is  responsible  for  the  murder  in  this  case; 
the  emotional  man  or  the  intellectual  man? 

A.  Well,  you  cannot  split  a  man  up  that  way  into  two 
parts.    When  the  man  acts  he  acts  as  a  whole. 

Q.  Well,  where  does  the  crime  originate,  in  the  emotions 
or  in  the  intellect? 

A.  The  emotions  represent  psychologically  the  instinctive 
drives  of  the  individual.  We  would  say  action  originated  in 
the  drive  of  the  instincts.  But  that  I  don't  believe  would  be 
a  complete  statement  of  the  situation. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  how  such  an  emotional  infantile  char- 
acter as  Loeb  could  appear  so  normal  in  all  of  his  human 
contact? 

A.  Unfortunately  that  is  a  very  common  experience  with 
these  people. 

Q.  In  your  opinion  did  Richard  Loeb,  who  appeared  nor- 
mal, yet  had  partaken  in  planning  this  murder  to  the  minutest 
detail,  have  the  power  of  choosing  to  carry  out  that  plan  or 
not?    Answer  yes  or  no. 

A.     I  can't  answer  it  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Crowe:   Answer  it  any  way  you  want  to. 

A.  Whether  he  could  have  avoided  doing  it  or  not  is 
largely  a  metaphysical  question.  He  did  not  avoid  doing  it, 
and  so  far  as  I  can  see  inside  of  him,  the  powers  that  were 
at  work  within  him  at  least  impaired  his  capacity  to  choose 
very  materially. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  from  your  examination  of  Richard 
Loeb  whether  or  not  on  the  21st  day  of  May,  1924,  he  knew 
the  difference  between  right  and  wrong? 

A.  He  knew  intellectually  that  murder  was  proscribed  by 
the  law. 

Q.    Did  he  know  it  was  morally  wrong? 

A.  He  had  no  adequate  feeling  attitude  toward  its  moral 
wrongfulness. 

Q.  But  did  he  have  sufficient  capacity  to  refrain  from 
killing? 

A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.    Doctor,  from  your  examination  of  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr., 

17 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

you  are  not  able  to  tell  whether  he  had  the  power  of  choice 
on  May  21,  1924? 

A.     I  am  not,  and  I  do  not  believe  any  human  being  is. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr., 
from  your  examination,  knew  the  difference  between  right 
and  wrong  on  that  day? 

A.  He  knew  it  intellectually,  but  he  did  not  have  the  feel- 
ing attitude  that  was  in  conformity  with  such  knowledge,  in 
harmony  with  it. 

Q.  In  your  testimony  you  said  Loeb  was  the  master  crimi- 
nal of  the  two.    Is  he  the  leader  of  the  two  in  this  crime? 

A.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  separate  these  two  personali- 
ties. The  character  of  the  act  was  the  outgrowth  much  more 
of  Dickie's  way  of  thinking  and  feeling  than  of  Babe's. 
But  the  relationship  that  was  maintained  between  them 
was  largely  maintained  as  the  result  of  Babe's  intellectual 
agility. 

Q.     Which  one  in  your  judgment  has  the  stronger  mind? 

A.  I  should  say  Babe  had  the  most  definite  objectives. 
He  is  building  up  something,  if  only  defense.  On  the  other 
hand,  Dickie's  whole  make-up  impresses  one  as  being  more 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  equation,  more  of  a  tendency 
to  disintegration,  to  follow  along  the  lines  of  least  resis- 
tance. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  that  a  young  superintellectual  like 
Leopold,  who  was  studying  law  and  preparing  a  defense, 
would  try  to  mislead  you? 

A.     I  wasn't  very  much  frightened  at  any  such  possibiHty. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  Nathan  Leopold  is  capable  of  do- 
ing so? 

A.     I  don't  know.    He  hasn't,  in  my  opinion. 

Q.  Assume  that  he  has  fooled  you  and  that  the  things 
that  he  has  told  you  about  himself  which  led  you  to  the  con- 
clusion that  you  now  have  were  all  lies,  then  you  would  not 
have  the  same  conclusion,  would  you? 

A.  If  things  were  all  different  from  what  they  are,  my 
conclusion  in  j:egard  to  them  would  be  different  from  what 
it  is. 

18 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dr.  William  Healy  testified  next  for  the  defense. 
He  said  in  part: 

To  my  mind  this  crime  is  the  result  of  diseased  motivation 
■ —  that  is,  in  its  planning  and  commission.  It  was  possible 
only  because  Leopold  had  these  abnormal  mental  trends  with 
the  typical  feelings  and  ideas  of  a  paranoiac  personality.  He 
needed  these  feelings  and  ideas  supplemented  by  what  Loeb 
could  give  him.  There  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  com- 
mit the  crime  with  his  diseased  notion.  Anything  he  wanted 
to  do  was  right,  even  kidnaping  and  murder.  There  was  no 
place  for  sympathy  and  feeling  to  play  any  normal  part.  In 
other  words,  he  had  an  established  pathological  personality 
before  he  met  Loeb,  but  probably  his  activities  would  have 
taken  other  directions  except  for  this  chance  association. 

Loeb's  secret  abnormal  mental  life  swallowed  up  his  ambi- 
tion. He  is  very  friendly,  pleasant,  well-mannered;  a  very 
charming  boy,  having  many  nice  qualities  on  one  side,  and 
yet  on  the  other  hand,  having  carried  out  for  many  years  a 
dual  personaHty,  having  been  an  extensive  liar  and  a  most 
unscrupulous  individual,  in  a  manner  and  to  an  extent  that 
is  quite  beyond  any  in  my  experience.  He  has  shown  a 
curious  desire  for  sympathy  in  pathological  ways;  a  desire 
to  get  along  socially.  Contrasted  with  this  is  the  fact  that 
he  is  most  remarkably  unscrupulous,  untruthful,  unfair,  un- 
grateful, and  disloyal  in  many  social  relationships,  disloyal 
even  to  his  comrade  when  he  cheated  him,  and  to  his  frater- 
nity when  he  robbed  them. 

He  expresses,  on  the  other  hand,  some  loyalties  to  family 
life  in  certain  ways,  and  he  has  some  well  expressed  and  very 
decent  ideas  about  girls. 

All  of  that,  of  course,  shows  a  disparity  and  a  contradiction 
that  to  my  thinking  is  certainly  abnormal.  The  ability  to 
carry  on  for  many  years  this  tremendously  contradictory 
dual  hfe  is  certainly  pathological. 

Their  association  began  at  15  years  of  age.  It  is  very  clear 
that  each  came  with  peculiarities  in  his  mental  life;  each 
arrived  at  these  pecuharities  by  different  routes;  each  sup- 
plemented the  other's  already  constituted  abnormal  needs  in 

19 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

a  most  unique  way.  In  regard  to  the  association,  I  think 
that  I  ought  to  say  that  the  crime  in  its  commission  and  in 
its  background  has  features  that  are  quite  beyond  anything 
in  my  experience.  There  seems  to  have  been  so  little  normal 
motivation,  the  matter  was  so  long  planned,  so  unfeelingly 
carried  out,  that  it  represents  nothing  that  I  have  ever  seen 
or  heard  of  before.  As  judged  by  their  conversation  and  by 
their  correspondence,  their  compacts,  their  quarrels,  their 
deeds,  all  tend  to  show  a  most  strange  and  pathological 
relationship. 

Both  Leopold  and  Loeb  told  me  that  drinking  was  con- 
siderable of  a  bond  between  them.  The  criminalistic  activi- 
ties of  Loeb  previously,  according  to  his  own  account,  began 
with  his  stealing  in  the  neighborhood.  In  the  matter  of  the 
association  I  have  the  boys'  story,  told  separately,  about  an 
incredibly  absurd  childish  compact  that  bound  them,  which 
bears  out  in  Leopold's  case  particularly  the  thread  and  idea 
of  his  fantasy  life.  Loeb  says  the  association  gave  him  the 
opportunity  of  getting  some  one  to  carry  out  his  criminalistic 
imaginings  and  conscious  ideas.  In  the  case  of  Leopold,  the 
direct  cause  of  his  entering  into  criminalistic  acts  was  this 
particularly  childish  compact. 

One  sees  Leopold  exhibiting  pretty  definite  signs  of  nervous 
instability,  frequently  shows  a  greatly  exaggerated  use  of  the 
muscles  of  the  face,  exhibiting  many  nervous  gestures,  ready 
flushings,  and  pallor.  I  also  see  signs  in  him  of  great  nervous 
energy,  and  evidences  of  some  pathology  of  the  glands,  of  in- 
ternal secretion,  probably  of  the  sympathetic  nervous  system. 
Concerning  Leopold's  mentality  I  find  conclusive  evidences, 
by  a  giving  of  a  considerable  number  of  mental  tests,  that  he 
possesses  very  high  intelligence. 

Leopold  has  developed  logical  methods  of  so-called  neu- 
monic  devices,  memory  devices  by  which  he  can  remember 
things  in  most  remarkable  fashion.  You  can  make  out  a  list 
of  twenty  words  and  he  will  read  them  over  and  then  he  can 
tell  the  order  of  those  words,  or  if  you  tell  him  any  one  of 
the  words  he  can  tell  which  word  came  after  it  and  which 
word  came  before  it,  and  so  on.  His  conversational  powers 
are  extremely  good  and  he  is,  all  through,  very  argumentative. 

20 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now,  concerning  his  personality,  one  finds  him  extremely 
energetic,  both  physically  and  mentally.  He  does  not  want 
to  stop  after  a  half  day  of  these  arduous  tests.  It  seems 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  what  psychiatrists  call  pressure  to 
mental  activity,  very  little  fatigue,  and  great  desire  to  go  on 
elaborating  his  thoughts.  He  showed  himself  to  be  self- 
centered  and  egotistic  beyond  any  normal  limit.  He  is  ex- 
tremely critical  of  other  people  and  decidedly  supercilious 
about  his  own  mental  attainments.  Very  stubborn  in  his 
opinions.  He  is  right;  the  world  is  wrong.  Leopold  has 
extremely  little  sympathy  or  feelings  or  conceptions  of  grati- 
tude except  in  some  very  narrow  fields.  There  has  been  a 
tremendous  subordination  of  many  normal  feelings  and  emo- 
tions to  this  excessively  developed  conception  of  himself  as  a 
superior  individual;  and  he  has  reacted  in  a  most  abnormal 
way  in  regard  to  the  whole  crime.  Leopold  shows  little  dis- 
gust at  jail  surroundings.  His  main  concern  seems  to  be 
whether  or  not  the  reporters  say  the  right  thing  about  him. 

There  seems  to  be  some  steady  impairment  of  his  own 
judgment  considering  himself  and  his  relationship  to  the 
realities  of  life,  inasmuch  as  he  has  been  so  willing  to  throw 
away  his  remarkably  fine  chances  in  his  environment  for  such 
petty  awards  in  relation  to  a  most  heinous  crime.  An  indi- 
vidual with  normal  judgment  would  have  naturally  developed 
his  real  superiority  and  not  taken  such  extraordinary  chances 
of  ending  his  career. 

He  says  that  there  is  one  thing  that  he  is  afraid  that  he 
has  not  "  gotten  across  to  us  scientists,"  and  that  is,  that  the 
most  important  thing,  much  more  important  even  than  pre- 
serving his  life,  is  the  preservation  of  his  dignity. 

Dr.  Healy  here  referred  to  Leopold's  fantasy  of 
the  "  king  and  the  slave."  He  told  how  Leopold 
had  identified  himself  with  his  "  king,"  Loeb,  and 
the  physician  produced  a  note  Leopold  had  given 
him  in  court  while  Dr.  White  was  telling  of  this 

21 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

identification.     The  note  said,  "  See  poem  I  quoted 
you,"  and  added: 

Let  me  dream  once  that  dear  delusion 
That  I  am  you,  0  heart's  desire. 

Following  is  the  poem  which  Dr.  Healy  said  Leo- 
pold had  previously  quoted  and  with  a  good  deal  of 
apparent  feeling: 

Long  past  the  pulse  and  pain  of  passion, 

Long  left  the  limit  of  all  love; 
I  crave  some  nearer,  fuller  fashion, 

Some  unknown  way,  beyond,  above; 
Some  inpiitely  inner  fusion. 

As  wave  with  water,  flame  with  fire; 
Let  me  dream  once  that  dear  delusion 

That  I  am  you,  0  heart's  desire. 

Q.    Who  is  the  poet  that  wrote  that? 

A.  Lawrence  Hope  he  tells  me.  In  his  fantasy  there  was 
a  ready  change  about  of  himself  with  Loeb. 

It  appears  to  me  to  reflect  a  profound  disorder  of  judg- 
ment, this  contradictory  existence  of  impulses  and  ideas  which 
were  living  side  by  side.  It  indicates  a  spontaneously  ab- 
normal rift  of  tremendous  contradiction  between  his  intellec- 
tual precocity  and  his  judgment  and  his  emotional  condition. 
There  was  no  normal  and  consistent  personality  developed. 

Leopold  very  early  thought  of  himself  as  possibly  a  com- 
pletely intelligent  individual  who  might  experiment  with  ideas 
of  right  and  wrong  and  conscience  and  God. 

Leopold's  feverish  mental  activities  have  been  made  all  the 
more  possible  because  he  has  not,  as  he  himself  indicates, 
wasted  any  time  on  emotion. 

Leopold  expatiates  nowadays  on  his  own  coldness  as  being 
desirable.  He  is  now  an  intellectual  who  can  keenly  observe 
things.  He  can  enjoy  what  he  sees  in  jail,  his  own  notes  of 
the  trial.  He  tells  us  that  he  has  had  considerable  interest 
in  observing  himself  as  a  murderer. 

22 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dr.  Bernard  Glueck  next  testified  in  behalf  of  the 
defense : 

I  took  up  the  Franks  crime  with  Loeb,  and  asked  him  to 
tell  me  about  it.  He  recited  to  me  in  a  most  matter  of  fact 
way  all  of  the  grewsome  details.  I  was  amazed  at  the  abso- 
lute absence  of  any  signs  of  normal  feeling.  He  showed  no 
remorse,  no  regret,  no  compassion,  and  it  became  very  evident 
to  me  that  there  was  a  profound  disparity  between  the  things 
that  he  was  talking  and  thinking  about,  and  the  things  that 
he  claimed  he  had  carried  out.  The  whole  thing  became  in- 
comprehensible to  me,  except  on  the  basis  of  a  disordered 
personality.  He  told  me  how  his  little  brother  passed  in  re- 
view before  him  as  a  possible  victim,  yet  he  showed  the  same 
lack  of  adequate  emotional  response.  His  lack  of  emotion 
struck  him  as  unusual  when  he  sat  hstening  to  the  testimony 
of  Mrs.  Franks.  He  came  to  explain  it  to  himself  as  having 
nothing  within  him  that  might  call  forth  a  response  to  the 
situation. 

Mr.  Benjamin  Bachrach:  Did  Loeb  say  who  it  was  that 
struck  the  blow  on  the  head  of  Robert  Franks  with  the 
chisel? 

Dr.  Glueck:  He  told  me  all  the  details  of  the  crime,  in- 
cluding the  fact  that  he  struck  the  blow. 

In  response  to  further  questions  Dr.  Glueck  said: 

My  impression  is  very  definite  that  Loeb  is  suffering  from 
a  disordered  personality,  that  the  nature  of  this  disorder  is 
primarily  in  a  profound  pathological  discord  between  his  in- 
tellectual and  emotional  hfe.  We  might  designate  it  as  a  split 
personality.  This  boy,  while  capable  of  orienting  himself  in- 
tellectually, is  quite  incapable  of  endowing  these  surroundings 
with  an  adequate  emotion. 

Speaking  of  Leopold  the  witness  said: 

This  boy  has  come  to  develop  a  definitely  abnormal  con- 
ception of  himself,  of  his  ego.    I  am  perfectly  ready  to  place 

23 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

that  conception  of  his  ego  within  the  category  of  what  we 
know  as  paranoid.  When  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  ob- 
ject to  having  me  detail  some  of  the  intimate  things  with 
respect  to  his  instinctive  life  in  a  court  room  he  said  that  he 
would  rather  hang  than  have  me  do  so.  He  told  me  that 
people  will  still  have  a  chance  to  consider  him  as  possessing 
royal  proclivities,  although  these  were  directed  into  destruc- 
tive channels.  He  told  me  if  he  went  to  the  gallows  that  he 
would  like  to  hold  forth  to  show  the  world  that  he  has  been 
consistent  to  the  very  end. 

Then  followed  the  story  of  Leopold's  early  life, 
of  his  fantasy  life,  including  the  "  king-slave  "  fan- 
tasy.    Dr.  Glueck  continued: 

He  told  me  of  his  attitude  toward  Loeb,  and  of  how  com- 
pletely he  had  put  himself  in  the  role  of  slave  in  connection 
with  him.  He  said,  "  I  can  illustrate  it  to  you  by  saying  that 
I  felt  myself  less  than  the  dust  beneath  his  feet,"  quoting 
from  one  of  the  poems  of  Lawrence  Hope.  He  told  me  of 
his  abject  devotion  to  Loeb,  saying  that  he  was  jealous  of 
the  food  and  drink  that  Loeb  took,  because  he  could  not 
come  as  close  to  him  as  did  the  food  and  drink. 

Nathan  F.  Leopold,  in  my  estimation,  is  a  definitely  para- 
noid personality,  perhaps  developing  a  definite  paranoid  psy- 
chosis. I  have  not  seen  a  definite  psychosis  of  this  sort  in  as 
young  a  person  as  he  is. 

Q.  Doctor,  from  your  experience,  state  whether  or  not  it 
is  ordinary  to  find  in  such  persons  a  high  degree  of  intelli- 
gence existing  at  the  same  time  as  the  abnormality. 

A.  I  should  say  that  it  is  quite  characteristic  of  paranoid 
individuals. 

Referring  to  the  cross-examination  of  Dr.  Glueck 
the  Chicago  Tribune  said: 

Mr.  Crowe,  on  cross-examination,  sought  to  make  Dr. 
Glueck  admit  that  Leopold  and  Loeb,  in  spite  of  their 
families'  wealth,  had  kidnapped  and  murdered  the  son  of  the 

24 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

millionaire  Jacob  Franks,  for  a  perfectly  understandable  mo- 
tive—  to  get  the  $10,000  ransom. 

That  the  doctor,  in  a  quiet,  steadfast  way,  refused  to  admit. 

Then,  still  seeking  to  travel  that  road  that  leads  to  the 
normalcy  of  the  defendants,  Mr.  Crowe  insisted  that  Nathan 
and  Richard,  for  all  their  heaped  up  advantages  of  heredity 
and  environment,  simply  were  the  black  sheep  of  their 
respective  families. 

Dr.  Glueck  again  refused  to  agree.  "  I  do  not  know  the 
meaning  of  the  term  '  black  sheep '  in  general,"  he  declared. 
"  Furthermore,  I've  known  many  black  sheep  who  were 
insane." 

"  Well,"  the  prosecutor  was  persistent,  "  but  what  of  the 
other  black  sheep  you've  known,  the  ones  who  weren't 
insane?  " 

Equally  persistent  was  the  doctor,  as  he  smiled  and  re- 
plied :  "  But  they  had  psychological  factors  which  might  ex- 
plain what  they  did." 

Mr.  Crowe,  unconvinced  that  the  majority  of  such  "  black 
sheep  "  might  be  paranoiacs,  pointed  his  irony  as  he  clipped 
out:  "Now  what  about  Benedict  Arnold?  He  enjoyed  the 
confidence  and  esteem  of  his  fellow  citizens;  then  he  threw 
it  away  for  position  and  money.    Was  he  a  paranoiac?  " 

"  I  don't  know."  And  Dr.  Glueck  likewise  pointed  his 
irony. 

So  the  prosecutor  took  another  example,  as  he  shouted, 
"  What  about  Judas  Iscariot?  " 

The  doctor  from  New  York  hadn't  quite  made  up  his  mind 
whether  to  be  annoyed  or  amused,  when  Judge  Caverly,  with 
genial  neutrality  in  his  tones,  ventured  the  authoritative  sug- 
gestion: "  I  don't  believe  you  ever  examined  him,  did  you?  " 

Then  Dr.  Glueck  made  up  his  mind.  He  decided  to  be 
amused,  not  annoyed,  as  he  answered:  "No,  I  don't  believe 
I  have." 

And  the  last  clash. 

Mr.  Crowe:  You  say  these  defendants  have  told  you  every- 
thing about  themselves.  Why  didn't  they  tell  me  everything 
when  they  confessed  the  crime  to  me  in  the  State's  Attorney's 
office? 

25 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dr.  Ghceck:  Because  you  are  a  prosecuting  attorney,  and  I 
am  a  physician. 

That  answer  seemed  satisfactory  to  everybody. 

Dr.  H.  S.  Hulbert,  who,  together  with  Dr.  Karl 
M.  Bowman,  had,  at  the  request  of  the  defense, 
made  extensive  observations  of  both  defendants, 
was  the  next  witness.  The  combined  report  of  these 
two  experts  was  admitted  in  evidence  and  covered 
several  thousand  typewritten  pages.  It  included 
physical,  neurological,  educational,  social  and  men- 
tal studies,  and,  in  a  novel  way,  it  included  re- 
searches in  the  physical  chemistry  and  in  the 
endocrine  or  glandular  constitution  of  the  defend- 
ants. It  appeared  to  these  physicians  that  there 
was  a  causal  relation  between  the  biological  make-up 
of  the  two  defendants  and  their  mental  state.  The 
main  contributions  to  this  crime  were  the  disordered 
inner  mental  lives  of  Loeb  and  Leopold.  Loeb  was 
a  quiet  chap  with  many  friends,  but  his  life  motive, 
which  he  had  not  disclosed,  was  the  compelling  de- 
sire to  carry  into  realities  the  countless  delusional 
phantasies  of  how  he  could  supersede  the  hero  of 
his  childish  excursion  in  literature,  "  The  Master 
Criminal."  In  these  pathological  reveries  he  always 
had  one  accomplice.  When  he  reached  the  praecox 
age  he  sought  an  accomplice  and  found  one  in  Leo- 
pold. 

Leopold,  they  said,  had  his  life  pattern  stamped 
in  early  childhood  by  two  governesses,  one  having 
introduced  him  to  life  in  such  a  way  that  normal 

26 


The  Loeb-Lcopold  Case 

relationships  would  never  be  appealing  nor  satis- 
factory, and  the  other  accidently  inculcated  upon  his 
impressionable  mind  that  he  was  superior  to  all  he 
knew,  but  if  he  ever  found  someone  superior  to  him- 
self he  should  become  the  object,  dutiful  and  un- 
questioning slave,  of  his  "  King  "  (cf.  "  The  St. 
Christopher  Legend").  These  ideas  of  superiority 
to  criticism  and  to  the  ordinary  code  of  social  ethics 
and  the  ideas  of  being  the  perfect  slave  grew  dis- 
tortedly  until  he  became  delusional  and  irresistible. 
He  found  in  his  neighbor,  Loeb,  an  adequate  sweet- 
heart and  what  he  regarded  as  a  mind  superior  to 
his  own  to  which  he  entered  slavish  bondage. 
Referring  to  Richard  Loeb  Dr.  Hulbert  testified: 

My  opinion  is  that  the  man  is  not  normal  physically  or 
mentally,  and  there  is  a  close  relation  between  his  physical 
abnormalities,  largely  of  the  endocrine  system,  and  his  mental 
condition.  Intellectually,  he  far  excels  the  average  boy  of 
his  age.  But  his  emotional  reactions  are  those  —  I  estimate 
because  I  cannot  measure  —  of  a  boy  of  about  9  or  10,  cer- 
tainly less  than  a  boy  of  puberty.  And  in  matters  of  judg- 
ment he  is  childish. 

This  discrepancy  between  his  judgment  and  his  emotions 
on  the  one  hand,  and  his  intellectual  attainments  on  the 
other,  is  a  greater  discrepancy  than  we  find  in  normal  persons. 

He  seemed  to  be  quite  interested  in  describing  the  plan- 
ning of  this  crime.  In  the  description  of  the  crime  itself 
he  was  extremely  indifferent.  And  in  describing  the  pain 
he  brought  to  the  families  involved  he  seemed  quite  indif- 
ferent. He  had  no  remorse.  He  was  interested  in  the  crime 
as  a  technical  thing.  He  had  no  adequate  emotional  reaction 
to  it. 

Richard  got  quite  a  kick  out  of  discussing  the  crime  with 
his  family.     It  pleased  him  that  his  mother  should  say  to 

27 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

him  that  the  criminal  who  had  killed  Robert  Franks  should  be 
tarred  and  feathered. 

He  was  a  little  worried  about  his  father's  silence,  afraid 
he  might  suspect  something. 

Not  purposely,  but  by  chance,  he  passed  the  Franks  home. 
He  experienced  no  remorse,  except  when  he  saw  the  coffin 
being  brought  out  by  the  small,  white-faced  boys.  Then  he 
felt  a  little  bit  uncomfortable. 

At  no  time  has  he  dreamed  about  this  crime.  Nor  has 
his  sleep  been  disturbed  in  any  way. 

Their  original  plan  with  whatever  boy  they  were  to  choose, 
was  to  strike  him  on  the  head  with  a  taped  chisel,  being  taped 
to  protect  the  hand  of  the  ■wielder;  to  take  him  to  the  cul- 
vert and  there  to  strangle  him.  Each  of  the  two  young  men 
was  to  hold  one  end  of  the  strangling  rope.  Then  to  obliter- 
ate from  the  body  all  marks  of  identification  and  to  place 
it  in  the  culvert,  where  it  was  to  remain  forever,  or  until 
it  had  disintegrated. 

The  witness  next  spoke  of  Leopold: 

In  his  religious  studies  he  was  intensely  interested  in  classi- 
fication, as  he  was  in  other  things,  too,  and  he  finally  found 
fault  with  God  and  as  far  as  he  was  concerned  he  abolished 
God  because  God  makes  mistakes.  God  made  a  great  mis- 
take when  he  took  his  mother,  an  almost  perfect  woman, 
and  left  others  not  so  perfect. 

He  then  became  an  atheist.  At  the  university  on  the 
admission  card  he  preferred  to  register  "  Atheist." 

Leopold  finally  conceived  life  existing  without  any  God  and 
there  being  no  God  there  is  no  right  or  wrong  per  se.  He 
said  his  mother's  death  changed  his  entire  philosophy  of  life. 
He  seemed  to  lose  inspiration  and  never  did  adjust  himself 
normally  to  the  world  nor  to  himself  thereafter. 

His  tendency  to  classify  things  led  him  into  a  maze  of  frag- 
ments of  philosophy  from  this  author  and  that  author.  His 
philosophical  knowledge  does  not  stand  close  scrutiny.  He 
thinks  it  does.  The  net  result  is  that  he  has  abolished  the 
ordinary  classification  which  most  of  us  accept  as  to  what 
things  are  right  and  wrong. 

28 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Q.  WTiat  did  he  say  to  you  as  to  his  attitude  toward 
friends? 

A.  He  has  had  no  close  friends.  He  has  always  desired 
a  friend,  but  that  friend  must  fit  in,  he  felt,  with  that  king- 
slave  fantasy  which  has  been  the  keynote  of  his  inner  mental 
hfe.  He  was  very  sensitive  to  the  criticism  of  others.  He 
preferred  to  live  a  non-emotional  life,  if  he  could.  His  ideal 
was  a  sheer  intellectualist.  His  mood  is  more  or  less  level, 
and  rather  shallow.  He  has  no  strongly  developed  emotions. 
His  philosophy  of  life  is  that  of  sheer  selfishness.  He  felt 
that  the  rules  which  hold  ordinary  men  did  not  apply  to 
him,  because  he  was  so  superior.  The  only  serious  mistake 
he  could  make  would  be  a  mistake  of  intellect. 

Q.  What  were  his  reactions  in  jail  as  they  appeared  to 
you? 

A.  In  jail,  in  discussing  this  crime,  he  took  particular 
pains  to  be  accurate.  There  was  no  other  emotion  of  any 
kind,  neither  chagrin,  remorse  nor  discomfort  at  being  in 
jail,  and  no  apprehension  as  to  his  future.  I  asked  him  what 
his  plans  were.  He  said,  "  Well,  I  can't  tell  what  my  future 
will  be,  but  I  would  prefer  to  get  married  and  settle  down." 

Q.     Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  question  of  hanging? 

A.  Yes.  He  said  that  the  end  of  life  is  the  end  of  all; 
that  one  might  as  well  hang  as  not,  and  that  if  his  family 
would  feel  bad  about  it,  they  should  disown  him  before  he 
should  be  hanged. 

Q.  Did  he  show  any  emotional  disturbance  when  you  dis- 
cussed the  question  of  hanging  with  him? 

A.    None  that  I  could  see. 

Q.  Did  he  show  any  emotional  disturbance  when  you  dis- 
cussed the  Franks  case  with  him? 

A.  He  denied  any  feeling  of  remorse;  stated  he  had  no 
feeling  of  having  done  anything  morally  wrong.  He  said  he 
was  disinclined  to  commit  another  such  crime,  not  from  a 
sense  of  remorse,  but  because  it  would  be  impossible  to  plan 
a  perfect  crime  intellectually.  He  said  he  had  no  enjoyment, 
pleasure,  sorrow  or  grief  from  the  crime. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  was  the  motive  for  the  Franks 
homicide  and  kidnaping? 

29 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

A.  It  was  a  desire  on  the  part  of  Richard  Loeb  to  commit 
a  perfect  crime,  and  a  desire  on  his  part  to  do  whatever 
Richard  Loeb  wanted  him  to  do. 

Q.  What  were  your  psychiatric  observations  so  far  as 
Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  was  concerned? 

A.  He  appears  to  have  the  intellect  of  a  man  thirty  years 
of  age  who  has  been  a  student  all  his  Hfe.  His  mental  de- 
velopment has  been  extremely  precocious.  One  was  next  im- 
pressed by  the  disparity  between  his  emotional  poverty 
compared  with  his  intellectual  wealth,  and  the  discrepancy 
between  these  two  is  extreme.  One  was  greatly  impressed  by 
the  vividness,  the  intensity,  the  duration  and  the  character- 
istics of  his  fantasies,  and  the  effect  of  these  fantasies  in 
fashioning  his  personaHty  was  obvious.  His  judgment  is  that 
of  a  child. 

His  sense  of  inferiority,  and  the  duel  between  that  and  the 
satisfying  sense  of  superiority  acquired  from  his  intellectual 
development,  showed  an  inner  mental  conflict  of  pathological 
importance. 

His  desire  to  classify  things,  to  lead  a  nonemotional  hfe, 
to  be  an  intellectualist,  was  greater  than  we  find  in  the  aver- 
age youth.  His  final  opinion  of  himself  as  the  supreme  being 
of  the  world  is  definitely  abnormal. 

His  lack  of  emotional  feeling  of  any  kind  toward  the 
crime  is  definite  evidence  of  an  abnormal  mental  state. 

Q.  Referring  to  both  the  Loeb  boy  and  the  Leopold  boy, 
I  will  ask  you  to  state  what  you  found  with  reference  to 
their  complementary  relationship? 

A.  Each  boy  felt  inadequate  to  carry  out  the  life  he  most 
desired  unless  he  had  some  one  else  in  his  life  to  complement 
him,  to  complete  him.  Leopold,  on  the  one  hand,  wanted  a 
superior  for  a  companion.  Loeb,  on  the  other,  wanted  some 
one  to  adulate  him  for  a  companion. 

The  psychiatric  cause  for  this  is  not  to  be  found  in  either 
boy  alone,  but  in  the  interplay  of  their  two  personalities, 
caused  by  their  two  constitutions  and  experiences.  This 
friendship  between  the  two  boys  was  not  altogether  a  pleas- 
ant one  to  either  of  them.     The  ideas  that  each  proposed 


30 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  the  other  were  repulsive.  Their  friendship  was  not  based 
so  much  on  desire  as  on  need,  they  being  what  they  were. 

Loeb  did  not  crave  the  companionship  of  Leopold,  nor  did 
he  respect  him  thoroughly.  But  he  did  feel  the  need  of 
someone  else  in  his  life.  Leopold  did  not  like  the  faults,  the 
criminahsm  of  Loeb,  but  he  did  need  someone  in  his  life 
to  carry  out  this  king-slave  compulsion. 

Their  emotions,  such  as  they  had,  were  so  diverse  that 
they  did  not  feel  attracted  to  each  other  for  their  personality 
worth,  nor  did  their  emotions  permit  them  to  rebel  against 
each  other.  They  took  each  other  somewhat  as  a  matter  of 
course. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  us  what  was  the  physical  and 
neurological  examination  that  you  made  of  Leopold? 

A.  There  is  to  be  found  in  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  consider- 
able pathology.  The  hair  development  is  pronounced.  The 
blood  pressure  was  low.  His  eyes  are  somewhat  prominent. 
One  eyelid  is  lower  than  the  other.  His  face  is  not  the  same 
on  the  two  sides,  there  being  asymmetry.  His  heart  sounds 
were  clear;  no  disease  of  the  lungs;  some  curvature  of  the 
spine.  He  is  rather  round  shouldered.  The  abdomen  pro- 
trudes. He  is  flat-footed.  The  thyroid  gland  may  be  felt. 
He  has  dermographia,  or  a  disorder  of  the  nervous  control 
of  the  blood  vessels.  From  all  of  which  it  was  concluded, 
bearing  the  history  in  mind,  that  he  has  neuro-circulatory- 
asthenia.  or  vasomotor  instability. 

Q.     Give  us  in  full  the  endocrine  findings  as  to  Leopold. 

A.  From  my  examination  and  study  of  this  and  similar 
cases  I  believe  that  the  thymus  gland  involuted  unusually 
early,  for  the  following  reasons:  his  sexual  maturity  came 
on  early,  he  had  a  very  low  resistance  to  infections,  and  there 
is  a  tendency  to  acidosis,  confirmed  by  low  carbon  dioxide, 
by  his  early  permanent  teeth,  by  his  early  secondary  hair, 
his  short  body,  stocky  frame.  The  pineal  gland  has  involuted 
early,  because  of  the  X-ray  showing  that  it  has  already  cal- 
cified at  the  age  of  19;  by  the  muscular  fatigue,  his  mental 
precocity,  the  disorder  in  his  blood,  the  sugar  disturbance; 
the  thyroid  gland  has  been  definitely  diseased ;  that  it  has 


31 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

been  an  over-active  thyroid;  that  the  over-activity  has  now 
subsided,  because  of  the  definite  history  of  a  rapid  pulse;  by 
the  condition  of  the  skin,  which  is  thick  and  dry,  with  coarse 
hair;  by  his  large  teeth  and  their  poor  condition;  by  his  slow 
pulse  now;  by  his  low  temperature,  low  blood  pressure,  low 
metabolism  rate;  by  his  mild  anemia,  his  early  sex  develop- 
ment; by  his  skin  reactions,  dermographia,  by  his  sugar  in- 
tolerance. He  has  a  disorder  of  the  adrenal  glands,  medul- 
lary insufificiency.  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  his  sex 
glands  are  over  functioning,  because  of  his  short,  stocky 
build,  his  early  and  complete  sexual  development  in  both 
primary  and  secondary  characteristics,  and  the  strong  sex 
urge. 

Q.  What  relation  is  there  between  the  abnormal  function- 
ing of  his  endocrine  glands  and  his  mental  condition? 

A.  The  effect  of  the  endocrine  glands  on  the  mental  con- 
dition is  definitely  established  in  the  minds  of  medical  men 
in  certain  points  and  is  still  a  matter  of  dispute  in  others. 
But  I  would  say  that  his  endocrine  disorder  is  responsible  for 
the  following  mental  findings :  his  precocious  mental  develop- 
ment, his  rapid  advance  through  school,  his  ease  of  learning, 
are  of  endocrine  origin.  The  fact  that  the  cruel  instincts 
show  but  little  inhibition,  is  of  endocrine  origin.  The  fact 
that  his  mental  habits  are  fixed  early  in  life,  is  of  endocrine 
origin.  That  his  mind  and  body  are  everlastingly  busy  is 
of  endocrine  origin.  That  he  fatigues  if  he  overexerts  him- 
self and  is  nonaggressive,  the  prey  of  hidden  fears,  neurotic 
and  unmoral,  and  at  the  same  time  keen  and  witty,  is  of  en- 
docrine origin.  The  early  development  and  strength  of  his 
sex  urge  is  obviously  of  endocrine  origin.  His  shallow  mood 
and  his  good  bearing  are  of  endocrine  origin. 

Q.  Now,  you  refer  to  intellectual  precocity  taking  place 
at  a  very  early  age,  and  a  drive  forward  of  that  tendency? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  that  upon  him,  where 
there  was  not  a  corresponding  maturity  of  his  emotional  life 
and  his  judgment? 

A.  The  effect  of  the  intellectual  drive  of  endocrine  origin, 
judgment  immaturity,  and  emotional  shallowness,  is  that  he 

32 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

now  has  mentally  a  decided  degree  of  discrepancy,  a  dis- 
eased discrepancy  between  his  judgment  and  emotions  on  the 
one  hand,  and  his  intellect  on  the  other  hand. 

Q.  Mr.  Crowe  asked  you  whether  the  number  of  sweet- 
hearts that  Richard  Loeb  had  would  not  indicate  a  depth  of 
emotion.  I  will  ask  you  now  to  state  whether  or  not  the 
large  number  would  not  indicate  a  shallowness  of  emotion. 

A.  It  depends  upon  whether  he  had  them  all  at  one  time. 
If  he  had  many  sweethearts  all  at  one  time,  his  emotions  of 
course  were  shallow.  The  man  who  truly  loves  his  sweet- 
heart has  no  room  in  his  heart  for  anyone  else  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Doctor,  may  I  interrupt;  are  you  also  an  ex- 
pert on  love  and  love-making? 

The  Witness:  Only  in  so  far  as  it  has  neuro-psychiatric 
importance. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Now,  doctor,  you  do  not  think  very  much  of 
Loeb's  judgment,  do  you? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  give  me  some  illustration  of  his  lack  of  judg- 
ment? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  greatest  illustration  is  that  he,  a  boy 
with  opportunities  far  higher  than  the  average  boy  in  Chicago, 
would  engage  himself  in  a  life  which  was  definitely  doomed 
to  destruction. 

Q.     Well,  that  is  the  crime  itself. 

A.  Yes,  that  is  the  best  example  of  defective  judgment 
that  I  can  find  in  him. 

Q.    Loeb  is  a  very  restless  fellow,  isn't  he? 

A.     Sometimes,  yes,  sir. 

Q.     But  not  all  the  time? 

A.  No,  sir.  He  would  even  go  to  sleep  in  the  examining 
room  while  I  was  talking  to  the  other  patient. 

Q.  Well,  a  man  who  can  go  to  sleep  while  a  doctor  is 
examining  his  companion's  mental  condition  is  not  an  ex- 
tremely restless  person,  is  he? 

A.  Not  at  the  time  he  is  asleep,  of  course  not.  I  think 
Loeb  showed  poor  judgment  in  selecting  the  courses  he  took 
at  college.  He  said  he  drifted  through  college,  following  the 
hne  of  least  resistance.     That  is  poor  judgment.    Any  man 

33 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

that  wants  to  study  law  as  he  had  planned  to  do  should  pre- 
pare himself  as  very  best  he  can. 

Q.  Now,  General  Grant,  in  his  life  of  himself,  states  that 
when  he  went  through  West  Point  he  spent  most  of  his  time 
reading  Charlie  Lever's  novels  and  just  slid  through.  Was 
that  a  case  of  poor  judgment  on  Grant's  part? 

A.     It  was. 

Dr.  Hugh  T.  Patrick  was  the  first  witness  called 
by  the  State  in  rebuttal.  He  said  that  the  defend- 
ants were  not  without  emotional  reactions  and  gave 
a  number  of  examples  from  his  own  observations 
and  from  a  consideration  of  the  Bowman-Hulbert 
report.  He  found,  he  said,  no  evidence  of  mental 
disease. 

Dr.  Archibald  Church,  next  called  as  a  witness 
for  the  State,  testified  that  upon  observation  he  had 
seen  no  evidence  of  mental  disease  in  either  defend- 
ant. A  number  of  questions  were  asked  him  on 
cross-examination : 

Mr.  Darrow:  What  do  you  mean  by  an  emotion? 

Dr.  Church:  Emotion  is  a  play  of  feeling. 

Q.  There  is  a  difference  between  the  part  of  the  human 
anatomy  which  produces  emotion  and  the  mind,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  seat  of  reason,  isn't  there? 

A.  I  don't  know  of  any  such  difference.  No  one  has  emo- 
tion unless  he  intellectually  perceives  it. 

Q.  You  are  assuming  that  mind  is  the  product  of  brain 
action? 

A.    Yes,  I  believe  it. 

Q.  The  mind  is  probably  a  product  of  the  whole  organism, 
isn't  it? 

A.    No.  I  don't  think  so. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  the  mind  excepting  the  manifesta- 
tions of  the  physical  organization? 

34 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

A.    Practically  not. 

Q.  Are  there  various  centers  in  the  brain  for  certain 
emotions? 

A.  Not  as  far  as  I  know.  There  are  some  who  place 
sexual  emotions  in  the  cerebellum  and  others  who  place  cer- 
tain moral  emotions  in  the  large  ganglia  at  the  base,  but  as 
far  as  I  know,  there  is  no  confirmation  of  those  localizations. 

Q.     Is  it  correct  to  say  moral  emotions? 

A.  Well,  that  is  descriptive  of  one  variety  of  emotional 
action,  those  which  pertain  to  the  duties  and  obligations  be- 
tween men. 

Q.     WTiere  does  one  get  those? 

A.  They  are  usually  a  matter  of  experience  or  educa- 
tion. The  ethical  ideas  must  always  be  instilled  in  a  child, 
because  the  only  two  emotions  which  he  has  at  birth  are  fear 
of  sound  and  fear  from  a  sense  of  falling. 

Q.  The  whole  idea  of  moral  emotions  is  built  up  from 
teachings,  is  it  not? 

A.     Precept  and  example. 

Q.  And  the  strength  of  the  precept  and  the  example  and 
the  teaching  as  compared  with  the  primitive  emotions  deter- 
mines the  conduct,  doesn't  it? 

A.     Yes,  I  think  those  things  are  related. 

Q.  That  is,  if  the  teaching  is  deep  enough  and  the  habit 
is  strong  enough,  people  will  stay  in  the  moral  groove.  And 
if  the  emotions  are  so  strong  and  the  teachings  are  so  weak, 
they  may  leap  over  it? 

A.  Yes.  It  is  a  question  of  self-control,  which  turns  again 
upon  the  question  of  discipline. 

Q.     Self-control  means  pure  discipline,  doesn't  it? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.  So  the  whole  question  of  education,  what  we  call  moral 
education,  is  a  question  of  fixing  habit  deep  into  the  individual 
so  that  he  ^^ill  withstand  temptation? 

A.     Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q.     When  is  the  most  trying  age  in  a  young  man? 

A.     At  the  age  of  puberty  and  adolescence. 

Q.  Then  comes  a  change  of  emotional  life,  doesn't  it,  as  a 
rule? 

35 


The  Loeb' Leopold  Case 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  if  ever,  with  the  young  man  or  the  young 
woman,  they  are  the  most  apt  to  jump  out  of  or  leave  the 
habits  that  have  been  inculcated  in  them  to  keep  in  a  given 
path  and  break  over  on  account  of  new  feelings  or  emotions, 
are  they  not? 

A.  They  are.  We  are  all  familiar  with  the  swell-head 
of  youth. 

Q.  And  it  is  the  most  prolific  time  for  insanity  with  youth, 
is  it  not? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Do  one's  beliefs  and  theories  of  action  or  theories 
of  life  ever  affect  his  conduct? 

A.     Oh,  yes. 

Q.  Well,  doctor,  Leopold's  views  as  to  religion  seemed 
very  thoroughly  fixed,  did  they  not? 

A.     I  thought  so. 

Q.  As  to  the  superman,  did  you  go  into  it  enough  to  know 
whether  those  were  firmly  fixed? 

A.    No. 

Q.  How  far  one's  conduct  might  be  influenced  by  his 
views  would  depend  a  good  deal  upon  the  strength  and  per- 
manency of  them,  would  it  not? 

A.     It  would. 

Q.  And  that  you  could  not  give  an  opinion  on  in  this 
case? 

A.    No,  excepting  as  to  his  attitude  on  religion. 

Q.     You  know  something  about  dreams? 

A.  Yes.  I  regularly  inquire  into  the  character  of  dreams 
in  nervous  people.  According  to  Freud  they  are  a  very  good 
index  of  character.     I  do  not  follow  Freud  to  that  degree. 

Q.     Do  you  follow  him  to  any  extent? 

A.  No.  The  character  of  the  dreams,  whether  pleasurable 
or  unpleasurable,  has  for  me  a  significance  as  a  reflex  of  the 
physical  condition;  but  the  content  of  the  dream  to  my 
mind  is  of  very  little  significance. 

Q.     Do  fantasies  have  anything  to  do  in  diagnoses? 

A.  Yes.  I  think  fantasies  have  a  significance  in  regard 
to  character. 

36 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Q.     Did  you  examine  for  any  in  this  case? 

A.     No. 

Q.     Fantasies  are  carried  over  into  real  life? 

A.  As  long  as  they  remain  fantasies  the  individual  knows 
their  nature,  that  they  are  dreams  or  aspirations,  and  he  may 
try  to  live  up  to  them.    In  that  way  they  modify  conduct. 

Q.  A  diseased  mind  functions  in  fantasies,  often,  doesn't 
it? 

A.     I  presume  it  does. 

Q.  And  the  individual  is  ruled  by  fantasies  as  well  as 
realities  often,  is  he  not? 

A.     Not  until  they  attain  the  delusional  stage. 

Q.     What  is  the  difference  between  fantasy  and  delusion? 

A.  Delusion  is  an  error  of  judgment  which  the  patient 
cannot  correct  under  any  circumstances,  and  fantasy  is  a 
dream  which  he  realizes  is  a  fantasy  or  a  dream. 

Q.  You  mean  he  can  correct  a  fantasy  but  he  cannot  cor- 
rect a  delusion? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.  As  a  broad  general  rule,  a  daydream  and  a  night 
dream  are  both  reflections  of  mental  life? 

A.  Nothing  can  occur  in  a  fantasy  or  in  a  night  dream 
that  has  not  in  some  way  come  to  the  e.xperience  of  the 
individual. 

Q.  If  you  would  know  all  a  mans  dreams,  or  a  boy's 
dreams,  and  fantasies,  and  hopes,  and  ideals,  you  would  know 
something  about  the  boy,  would  you  not? 

A.    You  would  know  the  boy's  character. 

Dr.  Harold  D.  Singer  was  the  next  witness  for  the 
State.  His  conclusion  was  that  neither  Loeb  nor 
Leopold  was  afflicted  with  any  mental  disease  and 
he  stated,  in  response  to  a  question,  that  a  paranoid 
personality  was  not  a  disease.  Following  is  a  part 
of  the  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Darrow: 

Q.     WTiat  is  a  split  personality? 

A.    A  splitting  in  the  personality  is  the  separation  of  ccr- 

37 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

tain  emotional  experiences,  which  for  some  reason  are  re- 
pressed out  of  consciousness  and  are  difficult  to  recall.  In 
some  of  the  disease  conditions  it  seems  that  one  can  not 
recall  them.  In  nondisease  conditions  it  is  possible  to  recall 
them. 

Q.  That  is,  the  normal  mind  generally  flows  along  a  regu- 
lar channel  altogether,  does  it  not? 

A.  I  could  not  answer  that.  I  don't  know  what  a  normal 
mind  is,  even.     It  is  a  hypothesis. 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  then,  of  course  you  do  not  know  whether 
these  boys  have  a  normal  mind  or  an  abnormal  mind.  Is 
that  right? 

A.  I  say  they  have  a  mind  that  is  within  the  range  of  the 
normal. 

Q.  If  I  fail  to  remember  a  name,  is  that  an  indication  of 
split  personality? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  of  a  splitting  off  of  a  certain  probably  small 
experience  in  your  life. 

Q.  Is  it  not  just  an  indication  that  it  did  not  impress 
itself  strongly  enough  on  me  so  I  can  recall  it? 

A.  It  may  be  an  evidence  of  senility  and  that  the  nerve 
pathways  are  undergoing  degeneration. 

Q.     It  might  in  me,  but  how  with  you? 

A.     It  might  even  in  me. 

Q.  You  have  known  of  cases  in  the  institutions  like  a 
woman  confined  there  as  a  scrub  woman  who  thinks  she  is 
the  Queen  of  Sheba,  haven't  you? 

A.  I  don't  recall  that  particular  instance,  but  something 
similar  to  that. 

Q.     Yes.     Is  that  a  question  of  split  personality? 

A.  In  one  sense,  perhaps,  and  in  another  sense,  no,  but 
a  good  many  of  them  are. 

Q.  If  I  say  I  am  feeling  like  John  L.  Sullivan  this  morn- 
ing, that  does  not  mean  I  think  I  am  John  L.  Sullivan. 

A.  That  would  be  just  the  distinction  between  whether 
it  was  an  evidence  of  mental  disease  or  not. 

Q.  But  if  I  said  I  was  John  L.  Sullivan,  and  John  L. 
Sullivan  come  back  to  life  and  wanting  to  challenge  Dempsey, 
that  would  be  different? 

38 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

A.  I  would  probably  be  able  to  sign  a  certificate  on  that 
ground. 

Q.  Now  if  a  woman  who  is  a  scrub  woman  in  an  institu- 
tion says  she  is  the  Queen  of  Sheba,  that  is  a  different  thing, 
isn't  it? 

A.  I  don't  see  that  that  is  much  different  from  the  as- 
sumption about  yourself. 

Q.    Maybe  I  have  got  it. 

A.  Maybe  you  have,  but  I  have  not  seen  any  evidence 
of  it  yet. 

Dr.  Rollin  T.  Woodyatt  was  the  next  State  wit- 
ness. He  stated  that  the  general  status  of  knowl- 
edge concerning  the  endocrine  glands  might  almost 
"  be  compared  to  the  interior  of  Africa  before 
Stanley  went  there."  He  said:  "There  are  many 
definite  facts  known,  but  they  are  scattered,  dis- 
ordered, unrelated.  This  field  of  endocrinology  be- 
yond the  coastline  of  definite  information  is  a  field 
which  has  been  exploited  by  romantic  writers, 
charlatans,  and  others  who  are  not  to  be  classified 
as  scientists." 

To  many  of  the  questions  asked  the  witness  on 
cross-examination  his  reply  was,  "  I  don't  know." 
A  visiting  lavi^er  remarked,  "  I  can  die  cheerfully 
now;  at  last  I  have  heard  a  medical  expert  who  isn't 
afraid  to  say,  '  I  don't  know.'  " 

Dr.  W.  O.  Krohn  was  next  called  as  a  witness  by 
the  State.  The  following  points,  he  said,  built  up 
the  evidence  of  no  mental  disease  in  Loeb: 

Health  and  integrity  of  memory,  as  shown  by  his  ability 
to  tell  the  details  of  the  fake  alibi,  and  the  details  of  the 
planning  of  the  crime. 

39 


The  Loeb'Leopold  Case 

Judgment,  as  illustrated  by  the  way  he  told  the  officials 
that  he  had  been  driving  and  had  not  struck  the  fatal  blows. 

The  same  iy^o.  of  judgment  was  operative  in  his  evaluation 
of  moral  conditions. 

Logical  sequence  of  the  entire  story. 

Every  answer  was  responsive. 

Excellence  of  attention  during  the  interview  in  the  State's 
Attorney's  office. 

Good  reasoning  by  deduction. 

Of  Leopold  the  witness  gave  a  similar  opinion; 
he  saw  nothing  indicating  mental  disease.  He 
stressed  as  factors  helping  to  form  his  opinion: 

Remarkable  memory,  especially  with  regard  to  the  books 
he  had  read  and  subjects  studied. 

Not  a  single  break  in  logic. 

Not  a  single  skip  in  the  chain  of  facts  that  he  marshaled  in 
his  support  of  his  argument  that  he  was  driving  the  car  and 
Loeb  struck  the  blow. 

Extreme  courtesy  to  others  in  little  things,  showing  that 
a  man  so  regardful  in  small  matters  would  certainly  have 
mental  power  and  capacity  to  be  regardful  of  the  rights  of 
others  in  larger  matters. 

Perfectly  oriented  as  to  time,  space,  and  social  relations. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence  arguments  were 
made  to  the  court  by  District  Attorney  Robert  E. 
Crowe  and  Assistant  District  Attorneys  Thomas 
Marshall  and  Joseph  P.  Savage  for  the  State,  and 
by  Walter  Bachrach,  Clarence  Darrow  and  Benja- 
min C.  Bachrach  for  the  defense.  All  of  these 
arguments  are  given  here  in  the  order  of  their 
delivery.  Perhaps  it  should  be  stated,  in  fairness  and 
accuracy,  that  many  pages,  from  almost  as  many 
books,  both  legal  and  medical,  were  read  by  some 

40 


The  Loeb'Leopold  Case 

of  the  counsel  on  either  side  in  connection  with  their 
arguments,  but  which,  though  more  or  less  relevant 
there,  have  been,  in  part,  omitted  here  —  none  being 
found  in  the  following  pages  save  such  as  were 
thought  would  prove  of  interest  to  the  reader  and 
of  maybe  more  than  mercurial  value. 


Speech  of  Thomas  Marshall 
If  the  Court  Please: 

THERE  is  in  this  case  but  one  question  before 
the  court:  What  punishment  is  proportionate 
to  the  turpitude  of  the  offense? 

If  this  is  not  a  murder  of  the  extreme  type  on  the 
facts,  then,  of  course,  a  lesser  penalty  than  death 
can  be  invoked;  but  when  months  of  planning,  care- 
ful execution  of  every  detail,  a  money  motive,  a 
kidnaping  for  ransom,  the  cruel  blows  of  a  sharp 
steel  chisel,  the  gagging,  the  death,  and  the  hiding 
of  the  body  all  appear,  as  they  do  here,  the  malice 
and  deliberation  take  the  crime  out  of  the  scale  of 
lesser  penalties  and  prescribe  death. 

The  statute,  it  is  true,  ranges  from  fourteen  years 
to  the  death  penalty,  and  the  court  has  a  duty  to 
fix  a  penalty  that  is  proportionate  to  the  depravity 
and  the  viciousness  of  the  crime  committed;  and  in 
arriving  at  its  decision  here,  the  court  must  exer- 
cise a  discretion.  Not  a  personal,  arbitrary,  willful 
discretion,  but  a  judicial  discretion;   the  applica- 

41 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

tion  of  the  law  to  the  existing  facts.  Twice  over 
under  the  statutes  of  the  State  the  death  penalty  is 
provided  by  law  under  these  facts,  and  the  State 
insists  that  any  lesser  penalty  would  violate  both 
the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  law. 

As  was  said  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  Osborne 
vs.  U.  S.  Bank,  22  U.  S.,  738: 

Courts  are  the  mere  instruments  of  the  law,  and  can 
will  nothing.  When  they  are  said  to  exercise  a  discre- 
tion it  is  a  mere  legal  discretion,  a  discretion  to  be 
exercised  in  discerning  the  course  prescribed  by  law; 
and,  when  that  is  discerned,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court 
to  follow  it.  Judicial  power  is  never  exercised  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  effect  to  the  will  of  the  judge;  always 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  effect  to  the  will  of  the  legis- 
lature; or,  in  other  words,  to  the  will  of  the  law. 

If  your  Honor  please,  this  is  a  government  of 
laws  and  not  of  men.  Here  in  this  court  all  are  on 
a  perfect  equality.  The  poor  and  the  rich;  the 
learned  and  the  unlettered.  No  man  is  above  the 
law,  and  none  beyond  its  reach.  Every  officer  of 
the  law  is  himself  within  the  law,  and  the  uniform 
enforcement  of  the  law  is  the  strength  and  security 
of  the  State. 

As  I  understand  this  legal  situation,  three  things 
are  involved  in  any  decision  of  the  one  major  ques- 
tion in  the  case.  In  determining  punishment  the 
court  must  consider,  first,  responsibility;  second, 
mitigation,  if  any  exists,  and  third,  turpitude. 

Responsibility  is  a  condition,  a  status.  There 
42 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

are  no  grades  or  .degrees.  One  is  either  responsible 
or  not  responsible,  and  in  this  case  the  responsibil- 
ity is  admitted  by  the  pleas  of  guilty.  It  is  proved 
by  the  confessions  and  by  the  evidence  in  the  case 
and  it  is  repeatedly  insisted  upon  by  the  assertions 
and  arguments  of  the  defendants'  counsel. 

Now,  if  Loeb  and  Leopold  are  responsible  enough 
to  receive  a  sentence  to  the  penitentiary,  they  are 
responsible  enough  for  the  extreme  penalty.  The 
measure  of  responsibility  is  the  same  in  either  case. 

I  wish  to  read  the  following  extract  from  the 
Wireback  case,  igo  Pennsylvania,  138: 

He  continues  to  be  a  legitimate  subject  of  punishment, 
although  he  may  be  laboring  under  a  moral  obliquity  of 
perception  as  much  as  if  he  were  merely  laboring  under 
an  obliquity  of  vision.  There  is  no  middle  ground  which 
the  law  recognizes,  nor  does  a  doubt  of  sanity  reduce 
the  grade  of  the  crime  to  murder  in  the  second  degree. 
From  the  very  nature  of  mental  disease  there  can  be 
no  grading  of  it  by  degrees  so  as  to  accord  with  the 
degree  of  the  crime. 

That  is  the  law  in  every  jurisdiction.  We  have 
the  same  responsibility  here,  legal  responsibility, 
whether  the  punishment  be  fourteen  years  in  the 
penitentiary,  or  life,  or  the  extreme  penalty  of  death 
on  the  gallows. 

In  Hogue  vs.  State,  65  Texas  Criminal,  jjq,  it 
was  said : 

This  court  has  never  recognized  the  doctrine  that  a 
person  with  a  mind  below  the  normal  should  not  be 

43 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

found  guilty  and  punished,  and  the  only  relief  for  any 
person  of  an  insane  mind,  under  our  statute,  is  that  if 
such  person  is  incapable  of  knowing  and  understanding 
the  act,  when  committed,  to  be  wrong,  he  is  not  sus- 
ceptible to  any  punishment.  It  would  be  a  strange  spec- 
tacle if  the  courts  were  permitted  to  speculate  as  to  the 
degree  of  intelligence  existing  in  the  mind  of  a  person 
charged  with  crime,  unless  some  limitation  or  point  was 
reached  where  culpability  ceased,  and  when  that  point 
was  reached  he  was  not  culpable. 

If  there  is  no  responsibility  here,  there  can  be 
no  punishment  at  all.  But  if  there  can  be  punish- 
ment, then  the  matter  of  their  mental  disease,  their 
phantasies,  their  delusions,  their  hallucinations,  all 
that  structure  upon  which  days  have  been  spent,  is 
of  no  avail. 

The  turpitude  of  the  offense  still  remains  as  it 
was.  It  stands  here  an  aggravated  murder,  a  help- 
less, defenseless  little  boy,  lured  into  this  automobile 
by  these  fiendish-minded  men,  slain  with  the  blows 
of  this  cold  chisel. 

What  for?  The  money  motive.  They  kidnaped 
him  for  ransom,  $10,000  in  old  bills,  throw  it  from 
a  train;  stealing  a  typewriter  way  back  here  months 
before;  carefully  planned,  every  detail  looked 
after. 

Any  mitigation  shown?  Phantasies,  hallucina- 
tions and  delusions  that  go  to  responsibility  only, 
and  nothing  whatever  that  affects  the  turpitude  of 
the  crime.  And  they  have  been  beside  the  mark, 
because  it  is  upon  the  turpitude  of  the  crime  that 

44 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  court  is  required  by  the  law  of  the  land  to  fix 
the  punishment. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Turpitude  of  the  party,  isn't  it? 
The  word  turpitude  doesn't  attach  to  an  act,  does 
it? 

Mr.  Marshall:  It  characterizes  it  or  describes 
it. 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  describes  the  person,  doesn't 
it? 

Mr.  Marshall:  There  is  in  this  case  not  even  a 
reasonable  doubt  of  the  sanity  of  these  defendants 
because  that  is  included  in  the  plea  of  guilty.  That 
covers  the  whole  field  of  responsibility,  and  leaves 
open  entirely  and  with  no  evidence  in  mitigation 
before  the  court,  the  facts  and  circumstances,  the 
viciousness,  the  depravity,  in  the  language  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  the  "  turpitude  "  of  the  act 
itself. 

Now,  as  a  tangent  to  this  responsibility,  we  have 
it  in  evidence  in  the  case  that  Leopold,  Jr.,  asserted 
himself  to  be  a  superman,  believed  that  he  was 
above  the  law,  that  if  he  thought  it  right  to  commit 
a  murder,  then  so  far  as  he  was  concerned  it  was 
right.  This  was  his  philosophy,  based  upon  his 
views  of  the  Nietzschean  doctrines. 

Your  Honor,  we  have  had  in  this  State  one  out- 
standing great  criminal  trial  prior  to  this  one.  I 
refer  to  the  Anarchists  Case.  The  anarchists  also 
had  their  philosophy. 


45 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Following  are  extracts  from  some  of  their 
speeches : 

All  governments  are  domineering  parties.  Assassina- 
tion will  remove  the  evil  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
For  freedom  all  things  are  just. 

We  need  no  president,  no  congressmen,  no  police,  no 
militia,  no  judges.  They  are  all  leeches  sucking  the 
blood  of  the  poor  who  have  to  support  them  by  their 
labor. 

We  are  told  that  we  must  obtain  our  means  and  need 
by  obeying  law  and  order.  Damn  law  and  order.  We 
have  obeyed  law  and  order  long  enough.  The  time  has 
come  for  you  men  to  strangle  the  law  or  the  law  will 
strangle  you. 

That  was  the  philosophy  of  the  anarchists,  to 
destroy  the  law.  The  philosophy  here  is  that  the 
law  has  no  application.  The  anarchists  believed  in 
their  doctrine  of  social  revolution,  but  they  were 
executed  under  the  laws  that  they  damned,  executed 
not  for  their  abstract  opinions,  not  for  their  theory 
and  philosophy,  but  because  of  their  murder.  Mis- 
taken men  that  they  were,  they  had  no  selfish  money 
motive  for  their  crime. 

Only  so  recently  as  People  vs.  Lloyd  et  al.,  304 
Illinois,  2 J,  the  communists  also  had  a  philosophy 
and  a  theory  of  revolutionary  socialism.  They 
aimed  to  conquer  the  power  of  the  State.  They 
were  convicted  of  a  conspiracy  and  their  conviction 
affirmed  in  the  Supreme  Court. 

Upon  what  theory  can  it  be  said  that  the  views 
of  Leopold,  Jr.,  his  philosophy  and  his  opinions, 

46 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

if  they  do  not  protect  him  against  the  law  itself  and 
his  punishment,  can  in  any  wise  be  urged  in 
mitigation? 

This  whole  question  has  been  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  growing  out  of  the 
religious  beliefs  of  the  Mormons.  Their  church  re- 
quired of  them  that  where  possible  they  practice 
polygamy.  But  Congress  made  polygamy  punish- 
able. The  question  went  to  the  Supreme  Court 
upon  conviction  of  one  Reynolds  in  the  then  ter- 
ritory of  Utah.  In  Reynolds  vs.  United  States,  g8 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Reports,  145,  in  an  opinion  by 
Mr.  Chief  Justice  White,  it  is  said: 

On  the  trial  accused  proved  that  at  the  time  of  his 
alleged  second  marriage,  and  for  many  years  before,  he 
had  been  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-Day  Saints  commonly  called  the  Mormon  Church, 
and  a  believer  in  its  doctrines;  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  male  members  of  said  church,  circumstances  permit- 
ting, to  practice  polygamy;  that  members  of  the  church 
believed  that  the  practice  of  polygamy  was  directly  en- 
joined upon  the  male  members  thereof  by  Almighty  God, 
in  a  revelation  to  Joseph  Smith,  the  founder  and  prophet 
of  said  church;  and  that  the  penalty  for  failing  or  re- 
fusing to  do  so  would  be  damnation  in  the  life  to 
come.  .  .  . 

In  our  opinion  the  statute  immediately  under  con- 
sideration is  within  the  legislative  power  of  Congress. 
It  is  constitutional  and  valid  as  prescribing  a  rule  of 
action  for  all  those  residing  in  the  territories  and  places 
over  which  the  United  States  has  exclusive  control. 
This    being   so,    the   only   question   which    remains    is, 

47 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

whether  those  who  make  polygamy  a  part  of  religion  are 
excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  statute.  If  they  are, 
then  those  who  do  not  make  polygamy  a  part  of  their 
religious  belief  may  be  found  guilty  and  punished,  while 
those  who  do  must  be  acquitted  and  go  free.  This  would 
be  introducing  a  new  element  into  criminal  law.  Laws 
are  made  for  the  government  of  actions,  and  while  they 
cannot  interfere  with  mere  religious  belief  and  opinions, 
they  may  with  practices.  Suppose  one  believed  that 
human  sacrifices  were  a  necessary  part  of  religious  wor- 
ship, would  it  be  seriously  contended  that  the  civil  gov- 
ernment under  which  he  lived  could  not  interfere  to 
prevent  a  sacrifice?  Or  if  a  wife  religiously  believed 
that  it  was  her  duty  to  burn  herself  on  the  funeral  pile 
of  her  dead  husband,  would  it  be  beyond  the  power  of  the 
civil  government  to  prevent  her  carrying  her  belief  into 
practice? 

So  here,  as  the  law  of  the  organization  of  society 
under  the  exclusive  dominion  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
provided  that  plural  marriages  shall  not  be  allowed. 
Can  a  man  excuse  his  practices  to  the  contrary  because 
of  his  religious  belief?  To  permit  this  would  be  to  make 
the  professed  doctrines  of  religious  belief  superior  to  the 
law  of  the  land,  and  in  effect  permit  every  citizen  to 
become  a  law  unto  himself.  Government  could  exist 
only  in  name  under  such  circumstances. 

Our  position  is,  your  Honor,  first,  that  these  de- 
fendants are,  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  re- 
sponsible for  their  crimes;  second,  that  weak-mind- 
edness or  mental  disease  is  not  to  be  accepted  in 
mitigation,  and,  third,  that  the  punishment  under 
the  law  is  to  be  proportionate  to  the  turpitude  of 
the  offense, 

48 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Our  statute  says  that  murder  is  the  unlawful 
killing  of  a  human  being,  in  the  peace  of  the  People, 
by  a  person  of  sound  mind,  with  malice  afore- 
thought, either  express  or  implied.  Our  Supreme 
Court  says  that  one  is  in  the  peace  of  the  People 
when  he  has  not  forfeited  the  right  to  live. 

Was  Robert  Franks  "  in  the  peace  of  the 
People  "  ?  Your  Honor,  all  the  elements  of  the 
crime  are  here  —  and  admitted.  Responsibility, 
malice,  deliberation  —  all  are  here.  Is  it  a  case 
that  merits  the  extreme  penalty  or  a  lesser  crime 
that  falls  within  the  lesser  penalties  of  the  statute? 

What  are  the  facts?  Loeb  and  Leopold  composed 
a  letter  for  any  case  as  it  might  arise.  They  pre- 
pared a  form  letter,  to  have  it  ready.  They  wrote 
the  ransom  letter  and  rewrote  it.  It  was  a  finished 
job.  All  it  needed  was  the  filling  in  of  the  name, 
and  mailing  it. 

Then  they  arranged  for  the  death  car,  assuming 
the  name  of  Morton  D.  Ballard,  renting  a  room  at 
the  Morrison  Hotel,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
viding for  a  place  to  receive  the  identification  card, 
going  down  to  the  Rent-a-Car  people,  giving  a 
wrong  name,  getting  the  recommendation  from 
"  Mason  "  over  the  telephone  —  and  Loeb  on  the 
telephone  giving  Leopold  a  good  character. 

They  bought  the  hydrochloric  acid,  they  bought 
the  cold  chisel,  they  taped  it,  they  bought  the  pieces 
of  rope  and  got  the  cloth  for  a  gag  and  had  a  lap 
robe  there  to  carry  the  body. 

49 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

They  planned  first  to  pick  up  young  Levinson. 
They  went  down  to  the  school.  They  looked  up  the 
telephone  book  for  Levinson's  address.  The  Levin- 
son  boy  was  gone  when  they  got  back.  They  waited 
an  hour  or  so,  and  then  got  field  glasses  that  they 
might  spy  out  the  boy  they  were  picking  out  to 
murder.  The  boy  went  down  the  alley,  and  they 
lost  track  of  him.  They  went  to  Levinson's  home, 
but  did  not  see  him.  On  the  way  back  the  fates  so 
had  it  that  they  saw  the  Franks  boy.  They  at  once 
decided  to  kidnap  him. 

These  two  stalwart  youths,  two  full-grown  per- 
sons, if  you  please,  inveigled  the  little  boy  into  the 
car,  and  then  one  of  them  —  and  they  each  disclaim 
and  accuse  the  other  —  struck  the  Franks  boy  with 
the  chisel,  and  dragged  him  over  the  back  of  the 
seat.  The  coroner's  physician  tells  us  that  there 
were  four  gashes  on  the  head  of  that  boy,  and  the 
evidence  shows  much  blood. 

They  drove  south  to  the  Midway,  and  stopped 
to  telephone  a  young  lady,  and  to  get  something  to 
eat.  The  boy  was  dead.  When  he  was  pulled  back 
into  the  back  of  the  car  he  had  made  noises,  and 
rags  were  stuffed  in  his  mouth.  Then  they  went  to 
the  culvert  and  disrobed  the  body,  and  Leopold 
poured  the  hydrochloric  acid  over  the  face.  Re- 
member the  debate  between  these  two  men  be- 
fore they  selected  hydrochloric  acid?  One  thought 
it  should  be  sulphuric,  and  the  other  said  hydro- 
chloric. 

50 


I 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Then  they  put  away  the  body  in  the  culvert,  after 
they  poured  the  acid  over  the  face.  And  the  things 
that  they  took  away  were  burned  at  Loeb's  home, 
except  the  shoes,  belt  and  blanket.  They  burned 
the  blanket  elsewhere,  and  disposed  of  the  shoes, 
and  then  mailed  this  ransom  letter. 

They  had  to  kill  the  boy  because  the  boy  knew 
them,  and  would  identify  them.  Their  plan  at  the 
outset  was  to  kill  the  boy  to  carry  through  the  ran- 
som program,  and  when  they  mailed  the  ransom 
letter  the  boy  was  dead  and  in  the  culvert.  They 
washed  out  the  car  and  told  the  chauffeur  the  blood 
was  wine;  and  then  they  returned  the  car  to  the 
owner,  throwing  away  the  chisel.  Then  they 
planted  a  letter  in  the  Pullman  car  and  they  sent 
Franks  instructions  about  taking  a  train,  and  they 
sent  a  cab  to  the  house. 

"  Put  $10,000  in  a  cigar  box  in  old  bills,  and 
throw  it  off  the  train,"  and  Loeb  and  Leopold  would 
be  on  hand  to  pick  up  the  money,  but  if  the  train 
slowed  down,  or  anything  happened,  they  would 
know  it,  and  they  could  get  away. 

It  is  proved  here  that  they  wanted  to  commit  the 
master  crime;  they  wanted  to  talk  about  it  and  read 
about  it.  The  master  criminals  wanted  to  commit 
the  perfect  crime  that  could  not  be  detected.  They 
did  commit  a  most  atrocious  crime,  and  went  about 
it  with  deliberation  and  a  malice  aforethought  that 
carries  with  it  only  one  punishment,  and  that  is  the 
extreme  penalty. 

SI 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

There  is  a  young  man,  your  Honor,  nineteen  years 
of  age,  in  the  county  jail  at  the  present  moment, 
Bernard  Grant,  under  a  sentence  of  death.  Grant 
went  into  a  store  to  commit  a  robbery,  and  in  the 
course  of  that  robbery  there  was  a  struggle  with  the 
police  officer,  who  was  killed.  There  was  perhaps 
no  original  intention  to  commit  the  murder. 

Shall  Grant  go  to  the  gallows,  under  the  law,  when 
men  of  the  same  age,  of  greater  education,  of  better 
opportunity,  can  deliberately  plan  and  scheme  a 
murder  and  kidnaping  for  ransom  for  months  and 
months,  carry  it  into  execution  and  by  any  possibil- 
ity escape  that  penalty? 

In  People  vs.  Savant,  joi  Illinois,  225,  the  sen- 
tence of  death  upon  John  Savant  was  upheld.  Sa- 
vant is  executed  under  the  laws  of  the  State  and  he 
was  acting  on  the  belief  that  the  man  he  killed  was 
intimate  with  his  wife,  and  when  he  spoke  to  him  the 
man  laughed  at  him,  and  he  killed  him.  Compare 
the  turpitude  in  such  a  case  with  that  found  here  — 
two  capital  crimes  interwoven! 

I  wondered  when  I  read  this  case  as  to  Savant 
whether  he  was  six  or  eight  years  of  age  by  the 
Binet-Simon  tests.  At  any  rate,  he  was  old  enough 
to  know  the  law  and  he  was  old  enough  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  death.  There  was  not  any  extensive 
plan  in  Savant's  case.  There  was  not  any  prepara- 
tion. There  was  not  a  kidnaping  for  ransom,  no 
buying  of  chisels  and  hydrochloric  acid,  but  the 


52 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

turpitude   was    sufficient   to    take    Savant    to   the 
gallows. 

In  1908,  David  Anderson,  nineteen  years  of  age, 
was  sentenced  to  death  in  Cook  County  for  murder. 
It  was  the  shooting  on  the  street  of  a  police  officer 
under  a  chance  meeting,  with  such  malice  as  goes 
with  that  kind  of  a  killing,  of  course,  but  with  no 
extended  premeditation  such  as  we  have  here.  Yet, 
Anderson,  at  nineteen  years  of  age,  upon  a  convic- 
tion in  this  court,  was  sentenced  to  die. 

Mr.  B.  C.  Bachrach:  Mr.  Marshall,  you  know 
that  it  was  commuted  to  life  because  he  was  only 
nineteen? 

Mr.  Marshall:  I  am  not  discussing  that  phase  at 
all.  What  other  agencies  do  is  beyond  us.  This  is 
a  court. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  was  not  a  hearing  before  a 
court  on  a  plea  of  guilty;  it  was  a  jury  trial. 

Mr.  Marshall:  But  where  lies  the  difference  be- 
tween a  jury  trial  and  a  plea  of  guilty?  All  that 
you  have  in  mitigation  and  all  that  the  State  has 
in  aggravation  goes  into  the  record  on  a  jury  trial. 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  doesn't  mean  they  are  decided  the 
same  way,  a  court  and  a  jury. 

Mr.  Marshall:  It  is  the  same  decision  whether  it 
be  through  a  jury  or  as  here  upon  your  plea.  It 
amounts  to  a  conviction  upon  the  record,  and,  if 
you   please,    a   conviction   of    the   highest    order. 


SI 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Anderson  did  not  plan  that  killing  of  that  police 
officer  for  months.  That  group  went  down  the 
street,  they  met  the  officer,  were  accosted,  and  shots 
were  fired;  the  officer  is  dead,  and  Anderson  is  sen- 
tenced by  the  court  to  the  death  penalty,  and  it  is 
affirmed  in  the  Supreme  Court.  If  we  have  gov- 
ernors who  interfere  with  the  courts,  that  is  the 
executive  branch  of  the  government,  and  not  the 
judicial.  If  the  courts  do  their  duty,  their  whole 
responsibility  is  ended.  Let  the  judiciary  assume 
and  accept  the  responsibility  for  their  acts. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Wouldn't  the  jury  have  been  justi- 
fied in,  sentencing  him  to  life  there? 

Mr.  Marshall:  I  think  not.  I  think  with  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  such  a  case. 

Mr.  Darrow:  The  Supreme  Court  didn't  say  that 
the  jury  would  not  have  been  justified  in  sending 
him  to  the  penitentiary  for  life. 

Mr.  Marshall:  They  say  the  judgment  is  affirmed, 
do  they  not? 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  all  they  say. 

Mr.  Marshall:  If  the  court  please,  I  wish  to  refer 
here  to  a  list  of  executions  in  Cook  County  for  some 
years  past,  giving  the  ages  of  the  defendants.  Rich- 
ard G.  Ivens,  twenty-four  years  of  age;  Andrew 
Williams,  twenty-two;  Frank  Shiblawski,  twenty- 
two;  Ewald  Shiblawski,  twenty-three;  Thomas 
Schultz,  nineteen;  Philip  Sommerling,  thirty;  Den- 
nis Anderson,  twenty-one;  Albert  Johnson,  twenty- 
five;  Earl  Dear,  twenty-six;  John  O'Brien,  twenty- 

54 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

two;  William  Yancey  Mills,  twenty-one;  Lloyd 
Bopp,  twenty-three;  Frank  Camponi  and  Frank 
Zager,  twenty-two,  each  of  them;  Nicholas  Viani 
was  seventeen  years  old  when  he  was  convicted, 
eighteen  when  he  was  executed;  Oscar  McCavit  was 
twenty-three;  Harvey  Church  was  twenty-three. 

These  men  named  have  all  been  executed,  and  at 
the  present  time,  in  jail,  awaiting  the  day  of  execu- 
tion, are  Walter  Krauser,  twenty-one,  and  Bernard 
Grant,  nineteen. 

If  youth  is  to  mitigate  an  atrocious  murder,  if  age 
is  to  save  these  men  from  their  just  punishment, 
every  conviction  that  I  have  cited  that  has  led  to 
the  gallows  has  been  a  mistake  in  the  law,  because 
not  one  of  them  —  and  I  know  something  of  the 
facts  in  each  of  them  —  not  one  of  them  compares 
in  premeditation,  in  malice  or  in  execution  with  the 
terrible  crime  that  is  here  for  judgment. 

Take  this  seventeen-year-old  murderer,  Nicholas 
Viani,  eighteen  when  he  was  executed. 

This  crime,  when  laid  parallel  with  the  record  in 
this  case  as  it  is  here  before  the  court,  is  a  simple 
crime  indeed.  Viani,  with  his  companions,  ran  into 
a  saloon,  fired  on  the  owner,  took  his  money  and 
went  out.  Viani  was  young  and  had  been  led  into 
crime  but,  none  the  less,  his  responsibility  under  the 
law  was  complete  and  he  was  executed. 

This  is  not  the  only  case,  your  Honor,  that  has 
ever  come  in  on  a  plea.  Before  Judge  Kavanaugh, 
in  this  court,  James  Smith  and  James  Butler  on 

55 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

January  i6,  1923,  pleaded  guilty  to  an  indictment 
upon  a  charge  of  murder  and  to  each  of  them  testi- 
mony was  heard  in  part  but  continued,  and  on  the 
17th  of  January,  the  next  day  after  the  plea,  Butler 
was  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  life  and  Smith  was 
sentenced  to  execution. 

In  the  case  of  People  vs.  Haensell,  2gj  Illinois, 
jj,  there  was  an  insanity  defense.  Haensell  was 
a  soldier  who  had  had  various  adventures.  He 
had  had  a  blow  on  the  head  as  a  young  man,  had  a 
goiter;  had  syphilis;  and  presented  the  defense  that 
he  was  insane.  He  received  treatment  for  three 
and  a  half  months  in  the  hospital  for  goiter  and 
vertigo,  after  which  he  was  honorably  discharged 
from  the  army  as  unfit  for  overseas  duty.  He  re- 
turned to  Chicago.  He  complained  to  the  police 
that  his  wife  and  his  mother  were  entertaining 
soldiers  at  the  mother's  home.    He  later  killed  both. 

Conviction  on  an  insanity  defense,  which  may 
have  had  a  real  basis,  for  all  I  know;  not  phantasies, 
not  delusions,  but  something  of  substance;  certainly 
the  conditions  recited  give  some  foundation  for  the 
assumption  that  there  was  something  there,  and  yet 
over  against  that,  he  was  not  mentally  diseased 
enough  to  escape  the  gallows. 

Here  is  another  conviction  and  execution,  People 
vs.  Laures,  28g  Illinois,  4go.  He  was  convicted  for 
the  murder  of  Celestino  Blanco,  The  defendant  was 
engaged  to  marry  one  Josephina  Alvarez,  who  kept 
a  boarding  house.     The  deceased  boarded  at  her 

56 


The  Loeb'Leopold  Case 

home.  This  was  the  cause  of  strained  relations, 
and,  one  day,  the  defendant  shot  and  killed  Blanco. 

The  turpitude  there  was  sufficient  to  take  the 
defendant  to  the  gallows.  Parallel  that  with  this 
case.  There  was  no  kidnaping  for  ransom,  no 
$10,000  in  old  bills  to  be  thrown  from  a  train,  no 
killing  of  a  small  schoolboy,  and  telling  his  parents, 
in  all  their  anxiety,  that  the  boy  was  safe  and  sound, 
knowing  all  the  time  that  the  mutilated  body  was 
out  in  the  tile  pipe,  its  face  eaten  with  acid.  There 
was  no  planning,  no  stolen  typewriter,  no  taped 
chisel,  no  preparing  and  writing  over  of  a  ran- 
som letter  in  that  case,  but  it  was  just  a  case  of 
passion. 

Your  Honor,  the  books  are  full  of  such  cases. 
But  nowhere  will  you  find  a  case  more  terrible, 
more  cunningly  planned,  more  carefully  executed, 
more  dastardly  than  this  case  at  bar, 

I  shall  give  to  your  Honor  a  list,  if  I  may,  and 
serve  counsel  on  the  other  side  with  the  same,  of 
these  cases,  and  the  others  from  the  list,  where  the 
sentence  of  death  has  been  affirmed  in  this  State. 
And  I  challenge  counsel  to  point  out  in  any  of  these 
cases  a  single  one  that  nearly  approaches  in  horror 
or  atrocity,  in  fiendish  depravity,  the  case  that  is 
before  this  court. 

I  wish  now,  your  Honor,  to  read  from  a  learned 
decision  in  the  case  of  State  vs.  Junkins,  147  Iowa, 
588,  very  appropriate  here: 

57 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

In  submitting  the  appeal  to  this  court,  counsel  con- 
cede the  guilt  of  the  accused  and  admit  that  his  convic- 
tion of  the  crime  is  sustained  by  the  overwhelming 
weight  of  the  testimony. 

Their  plea  for  interference  by  this  court  is  confined  to 
the  punishment  assessed  by  the  jury,  which  we  were 
asked  to  reduce  or  change  to  imprisonment  for  life. 

The  argument,  presented  with  great  earnestness  and 
force,  is  that  the  appellant  has  been  shown  to  be  a  degen- 
erate whose  defective  mental  and  moral  nature  renders 
him  no  more  responsible  for  manifestations  of  criminal 
violence  than  is  a  member  of  the  brute  creation  having 
neither  reason  nor  capacity  to  understand  the  moral 
quality  of  his  acts. 

To  take  the  life  of  such  a  person  in  vindication  of  law 
and  order  is  said  to  be  an  idle  act,  for  it  cannot  operate 
as  a  deterrent  to  others  of  his  class,  for  such  as  he  are 
the  blind  slaves  of  their  abnormal  passions  and  criminal 
tendencies,  and  when  these  are  aroused  to  activity  the 
possibility  of  punishment,  however  severe  or  drastic,  will 
not  suffice  to  turn  them  from  their  evil  purpose. 

If  a  man  who  has  led  an  honorable  and  law-abiding 
life  becomes  insane,  and  under  the  influence  of  a  diseased 
mind,  commits  an  atrocious  murder,  the  law  does  not 
demand  his  life  in  punishment  but  contents  itself  with 
putting  him  in  confinement,  by  which  to  restrain  him 
from  other  acts  of  violence. 

"  If,  then,"  says  counsel,  "  the  law  interpose  the  shield 
of  its  protection  to  save  the  life  of  a  once  normal  person 
who  has  become  insane,  why  should  we  not  be  equally 
reluctant  to  pronounce  the  death  penalty  upon  one,  who, 
by  reason  of  a  defective  organization,  molded  by  pre- 
natal limitations  and  conditions,  and  developed  in  vicious 
environment  for  which  he  is  not  responsible,  is  also  in- 
capable of  appreciating  moral  or  social  obligations?  " 

58 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Counsel  here  touch  upon  a  question  which  is  having 
the  increasing  attention  of  students  of  criminology  and 
kindred  topics,  and  it  may  be  true,  as  many  learned 
investigators  think,  that  the  methods  which  now  prevail 
of  protecting  society  against  its  defective  and  criminal 
classes  are  of  unscientific  conception  and  so  ineffective 
in  practice  that  a  civilized  people  should  discard  them 
for  other  and  saner  schemes  of  retributive  and  preventive 
justice. 

But,  as  we  have  already  suggested,  the  reform  must 
come,  if  at  all,  through  the  lawmaking  power,  and  until 
then  the  courts  must  administer  the  law  as  it  is  written. 

We  have  not  gone,  nor  shall  we  in  this  opinion  go 
minutely  into  the  horrifying  details  of  appellant's  offense. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  in  all  the  history  of  crime  none 
more  inexcusable  was  ever  committed.  It  was  murder, 
brutal,  cruel,  hideous,  and  cowardly  in  the  extreme,  and 
assuming  the  appellant's  moral  and  legal  responsibility, 
the  assessment  of  anything  less  than  the  highest  punish- 
ment provided  by  law  would  be  a  startling  failure  of 
justice. 

It  may  be,  as  counsel  suggest,  that  he  is  the  natural 
and  inevitable  product  of  '  Smoky  Row  '  and  the  slums 
of  the  city  and  that  in  a  certain  sense  the  ultimate  re- 
sponsibility for  turning  out  such  as  he  to  prey  upon  the 
innocent  and  helpless  rests  upon  society  or  the  State 
which  permits,  if  not  legalizes,  the  conditions  which  alone 
make  such  crimes  possible,  but  the  development  of  the 
ideal  state  in  which  crime  shall  be  banished  or  destroyed 
by  eliminating  the  causes  which  produce  it  is  beyond  our 
reach.  As  now  constituted,  the  law  ordinarily  observes 
only  the  overt  criminal  act  of  the  rational  individual  and 
punishes  it  without  attempting  to  trace  the  criminal  im- 
pulse or  inclination  to  its  origin.  People  are  born  and 
reared  under  circumstances  varying  from  wealth,  com- 

59 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

fort,  and  wholesome  example  and  influence  on  the  one 
hand,  to  poverty,  misery,  and  surroundings  of  the  most 
unfavorable  and  corrupting  character  on  the  other,  but 
all  are  made  subject  to  the  same  law,  and  each  must 
render  to  it  the  same  measure  of  obedience.  This  is  so 
because  such  are  our  human  limitations  that  a  finer  dis- 
crimination and  a  juster  apportionment  of  responsibility 
is  apparently  impossible,  until  we  have  reached  a  higher 
plane  of  civilization  than  has  yet  been  achieved. 

In  conclusion,  then,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  want 
to  call  your  attention  particularly  to  the  language 
of  the  Iowa  court  where  it  characterized  that  mur- 
der as  a  cowardly  murder,  and  I  ask  this  court  to 
contemplate  the  record  here  before  you  with  that 
thought  in  mind. 

Could  anything  be  more  cowardly,  more  terribly 
cowardly  than  the  crime  that  was  committed  here? 
A  fourteen-year-old  helpless  schoolboy  lured  by  de- 
ceit into  the  automobile,  by  two  stout,  robust  young 
men,  bent  upon  murder,  bent  upon  kidnaping  for 
ransom,  for  ten  thousand  dollars  in  old  bills;  lured 
into  that  car,  seated  in  the  front  seat  to  talk  about 
a  tennis  racket  with  his  friend,  whom  he  had  known 
for  a  long  time;  and  while  he  is  facing  forward  in 
that  car,  he  is  beaten  upon  the  head  with  a  steel 
chisel,  and  his  life  crushed  out  —  a  helpless  boy. 
Cowardly?  There  is  nothing  in  Illinois  jurispru- 
dence that  compares  with  it. 

And  so,  upon  the  whole  of  the  record,  compare  all 
of  the  Illinois  cases  I  have  cited  from  the  beginning 
down  to  this  moment,  and  nowhere  in  any  of  them 

60 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

will  you  find  the  premeditation,  the  deliberate  mal- 
ice, the  cunning  plans,  the  months  of  preparation, 
the  thought,  the  science,  the  ability. 

None  of  these  things  are  to  be  found  in  the  books 
in  connection  with  the  crime  of  murder,  and  here 
we  have  it  in  connection  with  two  of  the  three 
highest  crimes  in  the  statute,  the  only  two  crimes 
in  the  State  that  are  provided  by  the  law  with  the 
death  penalty  —  murder  and  kidnaping. 

The  authorities  construing  those  statutes  say  that 
the  punishment  under  those  statutes  shall  be  pro- 
portionate to  the  turpitude  of  the  offense.  All  three 
elements  are  here,  responsibility,  aggravation  be- 
yond anything  in  the  books  anywhere,  and  no 
mitigation. 

There  is  only  one  sentence  that  can  be  imposed 
upon  these  vile  culprits  that  fits  the  act  they  com- 
mitted, yea,  the  acts  they  committed. 

Twice  over  the  law  requires  their  lives  upon  their 
admissions  of  record  in  this  court,  and  any  lesser 
penalty  than  the  extreme  penalty,  upon  the  record 
in  this  case,  would  make  a  mockery  of  the  law 
itself. 

I  thank  your  Honor  for  the  patience  you  have 
shown  me. 


6i 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Speech  of  Joseph  P.  Savage 

May  it  Please  the  Court  and  Counsel  for  the 

Defense  : 

YOU  have  before  you,  your  Honor,  one  of  the 
most  cold-blooded,  cruel,  and  cowardly  crimes 
ever  committed  in  history. 

The  evidence  shows  that  some  time  during  the 
month  of  November,  1923,  Richard  Loeb  and 
Nathan  Leopold  went  to  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan,  to 
attend  a  football  game,  Loeb  and  Leopold  both  hav- 
ing been  former  students  of  Michigan  University, 
and  Loeb  being  one  of  its  youngest  graduates. 

From  the  house  of  Loeb's  fraternity  they  stole 
some  gold  pins,  a  few  watches,  a  little  money,  and 
a  typewriter.  These  conspirators  and  intellectual 
murderers  knew  that  if  they  were  to  purchase  a  type- 
writer here  in  Chicago,  it  would  be  possible  to  trace 
that  typewriter  to  the  owner,  and  they  were  taking 
no  chance. 

After  returning  to  Chicago,  they  began  to  look 
around,  and  to  consider  who  their  likely  prospects 
might  be  for  this  dastardly  crime. 

Among  those  they  considered  was  young  Billie 
Deutsch,  the  grandson  of  Julius  Rosenwald,  but, 
upon  second  consideration,  Loeb,  this  boy  who  has 
no  emotion,  as  they  tried  to  argue  to  the  court, 
thought  that  as  his  father  was  the  vice  president  of 
Sears,  Roebuck  &  Company  and  Julius  Rosenwald, 
the  president,  it  might  be  best  to  pick  another  boy. 

62 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Among  others  considered  at  that  particular  time 
was  their  bosom  friend,  Richard  Rubel;  this  boy 
who,  three  times  a  week,  would  have  lunch  with  both 
defendants.  And  they  talked  over  just  what  method 
they  would  pursue  to  dispose  of  their  companion, 
and  then  the  thought  came  to  them  that  if  they  had 
to  dispose  of  Rubel  some  one  might  suspect  them; 
also  that  Rubel's  father  was  a  tightwad,  and  in 
all  probability  would  not  come  across  with  the 
cash. 

Their  next  move,  your  Honor,  was  to  open  a 
bank  account,  and  Richard  Loeb  withdrew  money 
from  the  bank  and  turned  it  over  to  Nathan  Leopold 
so  that  he  might  open  an  account  in  the  Hyde  Park 
State  Bank  under  the  name  of  Morton  D.  Ballard. 
They  next  established  a  residence  at  the  Morrison 
Hotel. 

Leopold  then  appeared  at  the  Rent-a-Car  Com- 
pany and  made  application  for  a  car,  stating  that  he 
was  a  salesman  from  Peoria,  and  giving  as  his  resi- 
dence the  Morrison  Hotel,  his  bank  account  the 
Hyde  Park  State  Bank,  and  as  a  city  reference 
Louis  Mason,  1352  Wabash  Avenue.  Also  the  tele- 
phone number  of  the  latter's  store. 

Jacobs,  the  president  of  the  concern,  called  the 
telephone  number  that  was  given  him  by  Leopold, 
who  had  represented  himself  as  Morton  D.  Ballard, 
Loeb  was  awaiting  the  telephone  call.  He  answered 
the  phone,  and  stated  in  response  to  the  questions 
that  were  asked  by  Jacobs,  the  president,  that  his 

63 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

name  was  Mason,  that  he  knew  Ballard  very  well, 
and  that  he  could  recommend  him  very  highly. 

It  is  fair  to  infer,  your  Honor,  that  the  purpose  of 
renting  the  car  the  first  time  was  to  establish  their 
credit  so  that  when  they  wanted  to  get  the  car  at 
the  opportune  time,  it  would  be  easier. 

After  having  the  car  out  two  or  three  hours  it  was 
returned,  and  then  the  next  step  in  this  systematic 
planning  of  this  horrible  crime  was  to  prepare  to  re- 
ceive the  money  that  they  were  about  to  demand 
from  some  one  who  at  that  time  was  unknown  to 
them.  So  Loeb,  starting  in  some  time  in  April,  and 
continuing  up  until  May  15th  or  20th,  would  get 
on  a  Michigan  Central  train  leaving  the  Illinois 
Central  depot  at  3  o'clock  standard  time,  purchasing 
a  ticket  for  Michigan  City,  taking  the  newspaper 
that  they  had  specially  prepared,  and  going  to  the 
rear  of  the  platform,  when  the  train  would  reach 
the  vicinity  of  74th  and  the  Illinois  Central  tracks, 
where  he  would  toss  the  package,  while  Leopold 
would  watch  to  see  where  it  would  land. 

In  every  detail  their  plan  was  worked  out,  and 
they  made  approximately  ten  or  twelve  trips  out  on 
this  train  solely  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  where  the 
money  would  land  when  they  had  consummated 
their  plan  and  ordered  the  folks  of  their  intended 
victim  to  throw  the  money  in  the  designated  spot. 

So  that,  on  May  21st,  1924,  Leopold,  driving  in 
his  car,  accompanied  by  Loeb,  drove  to  the  vicinity 
of  14th  and  Michigan  Avenue.    There  he  left  Loeb 

64 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  entered  the  Rent-a-Car  Company  and  purchased 
a  ticket  which  entitled  him  to  take  a  car,  and  mak- 
ing a  fifty-dollar  deposit. 

They  had  lunch  at  a  restaurant  located  at  Cot- 
tage Grove  near  Thirty-fifth,  and  after  having  their 
lunch,  they  put  the  curtains  on  this  rented  car  that 
Leopold  had  obtained  from  the  Rent-a-Car  people. 
They  then  left,  Leopold  driving  his  own  car  and 
Loeb  driving  the  rented  car. 

They  drove  to  the  vicinity  of  Forty-third  and 
Cottage  Grove  Avenue,  where  Loeb  left  the  car, 
went  into  a  hardware  store  and  purchased  a  chisel 
and  rope;  Leopold  went  to  a  drug  store  and  there 
purchased  a  bottle  of  hydrochloric  acid. 

And  prior  to  that,  your  Honor,  Leopold  had  gone 
to  the  stationery  store,  and  there  purchased  en- 
velopes and  paper  for  the  purpose  of  writing  this 
letter;  and  this  letter  was  carefully  prepared  in  de- 
tail, leaving  the  envelope  and  letter  unaddressed, 
they  not  knowing  at  that  time  who  their  victim 
might  be. 

And  with  all  their  paraphernalia,  with  their  chisel 
and  rope  and  their  letter,  they  then  drove  to  the 
Leopold  home.  Leopold  entered  the  house  and  went 
into  the  bathroom,  and  there  obtained  from  the 
medicine  cabinet  the  tape  that  they  were  about  to 
use  on  this  chisel  in  this  cold-blooded  murder.  And 
while  he  was  there  he  removed  the  boots  that  he 
knew  would  be  necessary  in  placing  the  body  of  his 
intended  victim  in  the  culvert.    And  the  robe  was 

65 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

taken  from  the  house,  and  with  the  boots,  robe,  tape, 
automatic  pistols,  he  left  his  home,  to  look  for  the 
victim. 

And  then  Loeb  and  Leopold  drove  to  the  Harvard 
School.  Loeb  left  the  car  and  went  into  the  yard^ 
where  he  was  well  known  by  all  the  little  boys  in 
the  neighborhood,  and  there  he  spoke  to  the  tutor 
of  Johnnie  Levinson,  that  sweet,  beautiful  little  boy 
who  testified  before  your  Honor,  and  who  told  you 
in  all  his  innocence,  that  he  talked  to  Loeb  on  that 
day,  and  God  knows,  when  he  was  on  this  stand, 
he  did  not  realize  that  he  might  have  been  the  vic- 
tim 01  this  cruel,  cold-blooded  murder. 

And  after  talking  to  Johnnie  Levinson,  he  entered 
the  car,  where  Leopold  was  waiting  for  him,  and 
then  fearing  that  they  might  become  observed  in 
that  vicinity  and,  one  of  the  boys  disappearing,  that 
some  one  might  suspect  them,  they  decided  to  re- 
turn to  the  Leopold  home  and  get  a  pair  of  field 
glasses  so  they  might  observe  their  intended  victim, 
and  watch  his  movements,  and  at  the  same  time 
not  be  observed  themselves. 

After  getting  the  field  glasses  at  the  Leopold  home 
they  returned  to  the  Harvard  School  and  from  some 
distance  they  watched  the  little  boys  in  that  yard  at 
play,  and  they  watched  in  particular  Johnnie  Levin- 
son. And  all  at  once  the  game  broke  up,  and  think- 
ing that  the  boys  who  were  running  down  the  alley, 
still  playing,  were  going  to  return  again,  they  still 
remained.     And  after  waiting  there  a  little  while, 

66 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  the  boys  not  returning,  they  decided  that  they 
could  possibly  reach  the  Levinson  boy's  home  before 
he  could  reach  it.    But  they  missed  him. 

They  then  started  to  drive  around  looking  for 
some  other  victim.  And  while  driving  west  on 
Forty-ninth  Street,  nearing  Ellis  Avenue,  they  saw 
Bobby  Franks  and  immediately  decided  upon  him. 
And  this  cold-blooded,  fiendish  murderer,  if  the 
court  please,  called  to  that  little  innocent  boy,  that 
undersized  boy  of  fourteen  years  of  age,  who  ad- 
mired Richard  Loeb,  who  played  tennis  in  his  yard 
day  after  day,  called  to  him  and  said,  "  Bobby,  don't 
you  want  a  ride?  "  And  Bobby  thanked  him  and 
told  him  he  would  rather  walk,  only  having  a  short 
distance  to  go. 

And  then  what  did  the  cowardly  fiends  do?  Loeb 
says,  "  Come,  Bobby,  I  want  to  introduce  you  to  my 
friend  Nathan  Leopold,"  and  as  this  manly  little 
boy  walked  over  and  shook  hands  with  Nathan 
Leopold,  on  a  further  subterfuge  to  get  this  boy  into 
the  car,  Loeb  said  he  wanted  to  talk  to  him  about  his 
tennis  racket.    And  then,  oh,  what  then? 

Why,  Judge,  you  wouldn't  strike  a  dog  four  times 
on  the  head  with  a  chisel  and  not  give  him  some 
chance. 

Bobby  Franks  would  have  fought  for  his  life,  had 
he  seen  that  blow  coming.  But  no.  The  blow  was 
struck  from  behind,  that  cowardly  blow.  And  then, 
your  Honor,  counsel  come  here  and  cry  out  for 
mercy.    What  mercy  did  they  show  that  boy?    Why, 

67 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

after  striking  the  four  blows,  they  pulled  him  to  the 
rear  of  the  car  and  gouged  his  life  out.  Mercy? 
Your  Honor,  it  is  an  insult  in  a  case  of  this  kind  to 
come  before  the  bar  of  justice  and  beg  for  mercy. 

Let  us  be  just,  before  we  are  generous.  I  know 
your  Honor  will  be  just  as  merciful  to  these  two 
defendants  as  they  were  to  Bobby  Franks. 

What  chance  did  they  give  him  for  his  life?  And 
God  knows  his  life  would  have  been  a  life  worth 
living,  this  gentlemanly  little  boy. 

Then  they  drove  to  the  vicinity  of  ii8th  Street 
and  the  Panhandle  tracks;  they  drove  around  and 
around  waiting  for  it  to  become  dark  so  that  they 
might  hide  their  victim  without  being  seen. 

They  stopped  and  had  a  sandwich,  and  while  they 
were  driving  around,  in  the  pocket  of  each  of  the 
murderers  was  a  pistol.  For  what  purpose?  For 
the  purpose  of  extinguishing  the  life  of  any  pedes- 
trian or  citizen  or  police  officer  who  might  interfere. 

And  when  darkness  came  on,  they  took  the  body 
from  this  car  and  carried  it  in  the  blanket  approx- 
imately two  hundred  feet.  And  then  they  removed 
the  remainder  of  the  clothes  that  this  Franks  boy 
had  on,  having  taken  his  shoes,  stockings  and 
trousers  off  in  the  car;  and  after  removing  the  boy's 
clothing  Leopold  removed  his  coat  and  shoes  and 
put  on  his  hip  boots  to  keep  his  feet  dry. 

Loeb  took  the  bottle  of  hydrochloric  acid  from 
the  car  and  proceeded  to  pour  it  on  the  face  of 
Bobby  Franks.    Not  satisfied  with  murdering  the 

68 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

boy,  they  wanted  to  mutilate  his  body  beyond  recog- 
nition, so  that  that  poor  mother  who  resides  on  Ellis 
Avenue  and  that  father  who  resides  out  there,  and 
sisters  and  brothers,  in  years  to  come,  would  have 
never  known  the  fate  of  the  beloved  boy. 

Leopold  then,  with  his  foot,  pushed  the  body  of 
the  dead  boy  into  the  drain  pipe. 

After  placing  the  body  there,  he  went  up  on  the 
railroad  tracks,  where  he  started  to  remove  the 
boots,  and  then  called  to  his  co-conspirator  Loeb  to 
hand  him  his  coat,  and  when  the  coat  was  picked  up 
was  the  time  that  the  glasses  dropped  from  his 
pocket. 

After  placing  the  clothes  of  the  little  Franks  boy 
in  this  blanket  they  went  to  the  car  and  drove  away. 
And  while  on  the  way  in,  your  Honor,  from  this 
culvert,  on  this  letter  that  they  had  prepared  prior 
to  this  date,  Leopold  printed  the  name  and  address 
of  Jacob  Franks,  marking  it  special,  and  continued 
on  to  the  home  of  Loeb. 

When  they  reached  the  home  of  Richard  Loeb  the 
clothing  of  the  Franks  boy  was  removed  from  the 
car,  taken  into  the  basement,  and  there  they  pro- 
ceeded to  burn  the  trousers,  underwear,  shirt  and 
so  forth  of  this  little  tot. 

And  at  this  time,  your  Honor,  to  show  you  how 
cautious  and  how  deliberate  they  were  in  their  plans, 
they  removed  from  the  vest  of  this  little  boy  his 
class  pin,  also  his  buckle  and  his  belt,  and  they  set 
aside  his  shoes  because  they  knew  that  it  was  pos- 

69 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

sible  that  the  shoes  and  the  metals  that  they  re- 
moved from  the  clothes  of  this  boy  would  not  burn. 

And  when  it  came  to  the  robe,  which  was  satu- 
rated with  blood  at  that  time,  Loeb  hesitated  about 
burning  that  robe  in  his  home,  because  he  feared 
that  the  stench  might  arouse  suspicion  in  the  house, 
or  that  it  might  create  more  smoke  than  usual  and 
some  one  might  become  suspicious.  So  they  decided 
to  take  the  robe  and  hide  it  out  in  the  yard,  and 
they  did.  At  this  time  Loeb  secured  a  bucket  of 
water  and  some  soap,  and  they  went  out  to  where 
the  car  was  standing,  and  in  a  half-hearted  fashion 
they  attempted  to  remove  the  blood  from  the  car. 
They  next  went  to  Leopold's  home  and  parked  the 
car. 

They  then  left  the  house  and  made  a  call.  They 
called  the  home  of  this  little  tot.  They  asked  for 
Mr.  Franks.  It  was  Mrs.  Franks  who  answered  the 
phone.  It  was  at  that  time  that  Leopold  told  Mrs. 
Franks:  "  Your  boy  has  been  kidnaped.  He  is  safe. 
Don't  worry.  Instructions  will  follow  later,"  And 
the  boy  was  cold  in  death  in  that  God-forsaken  spot! 

Can  your  Honor  imagine  how  any  one  could  call 
the  mother  of  that  little  boy  and  tell  her  that?  Can 
you  imagine  her  feelings? 

Then  they  continued  on  with  their  job.  The  letter 
was  mailed  about  twelve-thirty  or  one  o'clock  in  the 
morning.  After  perfecting  their  plans  and  carrying 
them  as  far  forward  as  it  was  possible  that  night, 
Leopold  then  started  to  drive  Loeb  to  his  home.    On 

70 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  way  home  Loeb  reached  out  of  the  car  and 
tossed  to  the  side  that  weapon  that  had  crushed  out 
the  life  of  Bobby  Franks,  still  wet  with  blood. 

And  then  they  went  on  home.  I  wonder,  Judge, 
did  they  sleep  well  that  night.  I  wonder  if  that 
little  boy's  picture  did  not  appear.  I  wonder  if 
they  did  not  have  a  phantasy,  a  dream  in  which  they 
saw  Bobby  Franks. 

The  next  day,  your  Honor,  while  the  Franks  fam- 
ily were  awaiting  this  further  word  that  they  were 
informed  they  would  receive,  they  received  that  spe- 
cial delivery  letter. 

It  went  on  to  tell  them,  if  your  Honor  please,  to 
secure  ten  thousand  dollars  in  old  bills,  not  marked, 
and  how  to  prepare  that  package,  and  went  on  to 
tell  them,  your  Honor,  that  any  infraction  of  the 
instructions  in  that  letter  meant  death  for  their 
boy. 

"  A  strictly  commercial  proposition  " !  Why,  your 
Honor,  they  did  not  play  the  commercial  proposition 
half  straight.  They  could  have  secured  that  ten 
thousand  dollars  without  killing  Bobby  Franks. 
They  could  have  had  that  money,  if  they  were  de- 
sirous of  having  it,  without  shutting  out  the  life  of 
that  little  boy.  And  the  best  proof  of  that,  your 
Honor,  is  the  fact  that  that  morning  when  the  bank 
opened,  Jacob  Franks  appeared  there  and  secured 
the  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  then  came  on  home 
and  waited  at  that  telephone,  as  he  had  been  in- 
structed to  do  in  the  letter. 

71 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

That  morning  Leopold  goes  over  to  the  Univer- 
sity and  Loeb  meets  him  there,  and  about  eleven 
o'clock  they  leave  the  University  in  Leopold's  car 
and  drive  back  to  the  home  of  Leopold. 

And,  as  your  Honor  well  remembers,  Englund, 
the  Leopolds'  chauffeur,  the  man  who  had  never 
seen,  prior  to  that  time,  Leopold  touch  his  hands  to 
a  car,  upon  seeing  those  two  washing  out  the  car, 
came  downstairs  from  his  home  above  the  garage 
and  offered  his  assistance. 

Leopold  stated  that  they  had  spilled  some  red 
wine  on  the  carpet  the  night  before  and  that  Loeb 
did  not  want  his  father  to  see  it;  and  when  Englund 
offered  to  clean  out  the  car,  did  they  take  any 
chances,  your  Honor?  Oh,  no.  They  told  him  to 
go  on  back  to  the  garage. 

After  cleaning  out  the  car  they  proceeded  to  the 
vicinity  of  the  Illinois  Central  depot,  where  Loeb,  as 
he  had  done  many  a  time  prior  to  this,  your  Honor, 
purchased  a  ticket  for  Michigan  City.  With  this 
other  letter  that  they  had  prepared  and  addressed  to 
Jacob  Franks,  in  his  pocket,  he  purchased  a  ticket 
to  Michigan  City  and  a  seat  in  the  car  on  that  train, 
and  he  went  into  the  train  and  while  he  was  gone 
Leopold  again  called  the  home  of  Bobby  Franks. 

And  upon  the  phone  being  answered,  he  replied 
again:  "  This  is  George  Johnson,"  the  same  George 
Johnson  who  had  advised  him  the  night  before  that 
their  boy  had  been  kidnaped  and  was  safe. 

He  proceeded  at  once  to  give  Jacob  Franks  in- 

72 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

structions  where  to  go  with  the  ten  thousand  dollars. 
He  told  him  there  would  be  a  Yellow  Cab  at  his 
door,  and  for  him  to  get  into  the  cab  and  go  to 
the  place  named  and  there  await  a  call. 

But  Jacob  Franks,  five  minutes  prior  to  that  time, 
your  Honor,  had  learned  his  boy  was  murdered. 

He  begged  for  time;  he  asked  the  supposed 
George  Johnson  on  the  other  end  of  the  line  for  a 
half  hour  longer.  But  Leopold  insisted  that  he  go 
at  once. 

They  next  called  a  Yellow  Cab,  and  the  order 
went  to  the  Yellow  Cab  Company  to  send  a  cab  to 
5052  Ellis  Avenue,  the  home  of  Jacob  Franks,  and 
that  there  was  a  load  there  waiting  for  them,  and 
the  cab  was  sent  at  once. 

After  having  placed  this  letter  in  the  box  that  is 
used  for  blank  telegrams,  Loeb  left  the  Pullman  car, 
and  when  he  got  out  on  the  street  he  tore  up  his 
pullman  ticket  and  his  railroad  ticket  which  he 
had  purchased  and  then  he  and  Leopold  started 
south.  They  called  the  drug  store  that  they  had 
directed  Jacob  Franks  to  go  to  but  Franks  was  not 
there. 

After  trying  to  reach  Jacob  Franks  twice  in  this 
drug  store,  they  noticed  a  newspaper  stand,  and  on 
that  stand  in  large  headlines  appeared  the  statement 
that  the  boy's  body  had  been  found. 

Leopold  still  insisted  upon  getting  the  ten  thou- 
sand dollars;  wanted  to  go  on.  But  Loeb,  cool  of 
judgment,  insisted  that  if  they  continued  to  try  and 

73 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

get  the  money  after  that  boy's  body  had  been  found, 
they  would  be  taking  chances  of  being  caught.  So 
the  plan  was  given  up. 

And  was  it  an  elaborate  plan,  your  Honor?  This 
drug  store  was  located  about  two  hundred  feet  from 
the  Illinois  Central  depot  on  63  rd  Street.  It  wa^ 
their  intention  to  have  Jacob  Franks  go  to  this  drug 
store;  they  would  make  their  call  there;  nobody 
knew  what  instructions  he  would  receive;  conse- 
quently the  police  could  not  be  waiting  or  watching 
for  them.  And,  after  Jacob  Franks  received  that 
call,  your  Honor,  he  would  have  had  just  sufficient 
time  when  he  was  told  to  go  to  that  depot,  to  get 
on  that  train  going  to  Michigan  City,  its  final  des- 
tination Boston. 

And  even  then,  after  receiving  the  instructions  as 
to  what  to  do  in  the  drug  store,  he  would  not  know 
what  the  ultimate  plan  was  going  to  be.  He  would 
have  been  told,  your  Honor,  had  their  plans  worked 
out,  to  go  to  the  rear  car  of  this  train  and  to  go  to 
this  telegraph  blank  box;  and  that  there  he  would 
find  a  letter,  and  to  proceed  immediately  to  the  rear 
platform,  to  open  the  letter  and  read  it. 

Then  what  did  the  letter  state?  It  told  Jacob 
Franks  to  turn  to  the  east,  and  to  watch  for  a  large 
red  brick  factory  with  a  black  water  tower  on  it, 
and  the  word  "  Champion  "  inscribed  on  the  tower; 
to  have  the  money  ready  and  as  he  reached  the 
south  end  of  the  factory  described  in  this  letter, 
to  count  five  hurriedly,  and  then  throw  it. 

74 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

They  planned  to  go  to  the  vicinity  of  this  fac- 
tory, your  Honor,  where  they  had  been  several  times 
prior  to  that,  and  be  unobserved.  They  had  a  place 
where  they  could  stand,  and  with  the  field  glasses 
that  they  had  used  for  observing  the  little  tots  at 
play,  they  were  to  observe  this  train  approaching. 
And  if  that  train  should  be  late,  your  Honor,  or 
slow  down  at  that  particular  point,  they  had  it 
planned  to  drive  on,  fearing  trouble. 

Why,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  apprehend  them 
in  a  hundred  thousand  years.  Think  of  the  per- 
fection of  that  plan.  Not  even  Jacob  Franks,  your 
Honor,  knew  what  was  going  to  happen  until  he  got 
on  that  train  at  63rd  Street,  if  their  plans  had 
worked  out,  and  by  the  time  he  had  reached  74th 
Street,  he  had  disposed  of  the  money. 

And  on  Friday  morning  Leopold  went  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago,  your  Honor,  and  there  proceeded 
to  take  this  entrance  examination  for  Harvard,  one 
of  the  great  universities  of  the  world,  and  his  intel- 
lect enabled  him  to  safely  pass. 

And  while  Leopold  was  taking  this  examination 
for  Harvard,  Loeb  said  to  some  newspaper  reporters, 
"  Why  don't  you  go  along  63  rd  Street  and  try  and 
locate  those  drug  stores  that  they  were  calling  to 
and  from?  Let  me  go  along  with  you.  I  will  help 
you  to  find  them."  Your  Honor  will  remember  that 
Jacob  Franks,  in  his  excitement,  had  forgotten  the 
number  of  the  street  to  which  he  had  been  told  to  go 
by  Leopold. 

75 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

And  after  going,  your  Honor,  to  the  various  places 
until  they  reached  this  particular  drug  store  at 
1465  East  63rd  Street,  upon  making  inquiry  in 
there,  they  were  informed  that  on  that  day  of  May 
22  nd  two  telephone  calls  had  come  to  that  drug  store 
inquiring  for  Jacob  Franks,  and  after  sending  that 
information  back  to  their  papers,  they  started  over 
to  the  vicinity  of  the  Franks  home. 

And  one  of  the  newspaper  boys  turned  to  Loeb  and 
asked  Loeb  if  he  knew  Bobby  Franks.  He  said  he 
did,  that  Bobby  Franks  used  to  play  tennis  in  his 
yard,  and  said,  in  reply  to  a  question  as  to  what 
kind  of  a  fellow  he  was,  that  if  one  was  going  to  pick 
out  a  boy  to  kidnap  or  murder  he  was  just  the  kind 
of  a  little  cocky he  would  pick. 

Just  imagine  that,  your  Honor,  coming  from  the 
murderer  two  days  after  the  boy  had  been  murdered. 
Does  not  that  show  an  abandoned  and  malignant 
heart?  Then  they  decided  that  they  had  better  dis- 
pose of  the  little  class  pin,  and  belt,  and  shoes  of 
Bobby,  so  they  drove  out  into  Indiana,  and  hid  them 
out  there.    Then  they  returned. 

And  while  he  was  talking  to  Captain  Wolff,  in 
answer  to  the  question  whether  there  were  any  mem- 
bers of  his  class  or  any  of  his  friends  who  wore 
glasses,  Leopold  named  his  companion  George 
Lewis.  And  that  night,  fearing  that  by  some  chance 
they  might  pick  him  out,  he  stole  the  typewriter, 
this  Underwood  portable  typewriter,  from  his  house 
unnoticed,  and  placed  it  in  the  back  of  his  machine, 

76 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  Loeb  twisted  off  the  keys.  They  threw  the 
typewriter  in  one  lagoon,  the  keys  in  another. 

And  then  they  went  home  after  making  up  their 
alibi  story  and  agreeing  that  if  they  were  called  in 
within  a  week  and  questioned  they  would  tell  the 
story,  but  if  they  were  called  in  after  a  week  they 
would  not  remember  where  they  were  on  that  day. 

In  the  meantime,  your  Honor,  we  began  trying 
to  find  out  who  was  the  owner  of  the  glasses  that 
had  been  found  at  the  culvert.  It  was  soon  learned 
who  were  the  makers  of  the  frames  and  that  Aimer 
Coe  &  Co.  of  this  city  handled  the  goods  of  that 
manufacturer.  Upon  visiting  Aimer  Coe  &  Co.  the 
makers  of  the  frames  immediately  recognized  the 
frame  as  their  own  special  design,  and  they  recog- 
nized the  lenses  as  their  lenses  by  the  peculiar  mark 
on  the  lens,  —  and  I  want  to  say  now,  your  Honor, 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  systematic  and  efficient 
method  Aimer  Coe  &  Co.  use  in  keeping  their  rec- 
ords, Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  and  Richard  Loeb  would 
be  walking  the  streets  today. 

That  stalwart  business  man,  Aimer  Coe  himself, 
with  his  manager,  Jacob  Weinstein,  said,  "  We  will 
place  our  entire  force  at  work  and  check  back  the 
records  and  see  if  we  can  find  a  prescription  to  tally 
with  the  glasses." 

And  they  did,  and  they  gave  us  the  names  of 
three  people,  one  a  prominent  lawyer  in  this  com- 
munity, another  a  young  lady,  and  the  third  Nathan 
Leopold,  Jr.,  all  prescriptions  identically  the  same. 

77 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

The  lawyer  was  out  of  the  city,  the  lady  had  her 
glasses  on,  and  then  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  was  called 
in  and  he  told  the  story  previously  agreed  upon  by 
him  and  Loeb. 

"  Nathan,  have  you  your  glasses  at  home? " 
asked  the  State's  Attorney.    "  Yes." 

"  Do  those  glasses  resemble  yours?  "  And  Leo- 
pold takes  the  glasses  and  examines  them  and  makes 
the  statement,  your  Honor:  "  If  I  were  not  sure  my 
glasses  were  at  home,  I  would  say  these  are  mine." 

The  State's  Attorney  requested  him  to  visit  his 
home,  accompanied  by  the  police  officers,  and  to  find 
his  glasses.  When  he  arrived  at  his  home  he  looked 
and  looked  and  looked  and  went  to  a  drawer  where 
he  picked  out  the  case  that  he  had  received  when 
he  purchased  the  glasses,  and  he  handed  the  case  to 
one  of  the  police  officers,  and  said:  "This  is  my 
case,  with  the  name  of  Aimer  Coe  on  the  face  of  it." 

But  he  couldn't  find  his  glasses  and  the  police 
officers  brought  Nathan  Leopold  back  to  the  La- 
Salle  Hotel. 

Before  Leopold  had  returned  to  the  hotel  Richard 
Loeb  had  been  brought  in,  and  upon  being  asked  to 
trace  his  footsteps  —  keeping  in  mind,  your  Honor, 
that  the  week  had  elapsed  the  day  before,  and  that 
the  alibi  that  they  had  framed  was  not  to  be  on 
after  a  week  —  Loeb  lost  his  memory  and  could  not 
say  where  he  was  on  that  particular  day. 

The  State's  Attorney,  leading  him  step  by  step, 
asked  him  if  it  was  not  a  fact  that  on  the  21st  he 

78 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

had  lunch  with  Leopold  at  Marshall  Field's  grill. 
Loeb  then  knew  that  Leopold  had  told  the  ahbi 
story,  and  he  immediately  proceeded  to  tell  his  story, 
the  same  as  Leopold,  and  convincing  every  one  in 
that  room,  your  Honor,  that  he  was  telling  the  ab- 
solute truth. 

And  after  he  had  gone  over  his  story,  which 
varied  in  no  respect  after  he  started  to  tell  it,  the 
State's  Attorney  asked  him  what  he  thought  about 
the  glasses,  and  Loeb  said:  "Why  every  one  says 
that  if  you  find  the  owner  of  the  glasses  you  have 
found  the  man  who  murdered  Bobbie  Franks." 

The  State's  Attorney  then  said  to  him:  "  Richard, 
what  would  you  say  if  I  told  you  that  your  pal, 
Nathan  Leopold,  is  the  owner  of  the  glasses?  " 
Why,  your  Honor,  he  almost  jumped  out  of  his 
seat,  and  gasped:  "  My  God!  Why,  that  can't  be 
true,  and  if  it  is  true  it  could  not  be  Nathan  that 
had  anything  to  do  with  this  crime.  Why,  I  was 
with  him  on  that  day  in  question."  And  the  State's 
Attorney  said  to  him:  "  Yes,  Richard,  I  know  you 
were." 

He  was  taken  from  the  room,  and  Leopold  was 
brought  back,  and  upon  being  asked  if  he  had  found 
his  glasses  he  stated  that  he  had  not,  and  that  these 
glasses  must  be  his. 

Then  he  was  asked  to  explain  how  it  was  possible 
for  his  glasses  to  be  approximately  ten  or  twelve 
feet  from  the  culvert  where  this  boy  was  buried,  and 
he  had  the  most  wonderful  explanation.     "  Why," 

79 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

he  said,  "  that  is  nothing,  Judge;  I  have  been  around 
that  location  two  hundred  times.  Why,  it  is  only 
last  Saturday  I  was  out  there  with  George  Lewis, 
I  was  out  there  with  Sidney  Stein,  and,  Judge,  on 
Sunday,  I  made  another  visit;  I  was  there  again 
Sunday  with  Sidney  Stein,  and  it  is  more  than  likely 
that  I  dropped  my  glasses  from  my  pocket." 

And  then  he  was  asked,  "  Well,  Nathan,  you 
stated  that  you  have  not  worn  your  glasses  for  four 
or  five  months.  What  were  you  doing  with  your 
glasses  in  your  pocket  if  you  were  not  wearing 
them?  "  And  he  said  that  the  bird  suits,  the  suits 
that  he  used  on  his  ornithology  expeditions,  were 
hanging  in  the  closets  sometimes  two  or  three 
months  not  being  pressed,  and  that  in  all  probabil- 
ity he  had  left  the  glasses  in  one  of  these  suits. 

And  he  remembered  in  particular  on  this  Sunday 
that  he  wanted  to  shoot  some  bird  and  the  bird 
was  over,  your  Honor,  in  Hyde  Lake,  and  he  re- 
membered going  across  that  particular  spot,  and  that 
he  ran  from  the  direction  of  Wolf  Lake  toward 
Hyde  Lake,  and  that  he  stumbled  while  he  was 
trying  to  shoot  that  bird,  and  that  that  must  have 
been  the  time  that  he  lost  his  glasses. 

And  then  he  was  asked  to  put  the  glasses  in  his 
pocket;  then  he  was  asked  to  trip  on  the  floor  and 
he  was  asked  to  stumble  on  the  floor,  and  he  tripped 
and  stumbled  and  he  fell  and  the  glasses  still  re- 
mained in  his  pocket.  And  then  he  was  asked  to 
remove  his  coat,  your  Honor,  and  then  he  was  asked 

80 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  pick  up  that  coat  by  the  tail,  and  when  he  did 
the  glasses  fell  out  of  the  pocket.  That  was  the  way 
it  had  actually  occurred.  Loeb  had  so  handed  the 
coat  to  Leopold  at  the  culvert. 

The  defendant  Leopold  was  told  that  an  Under- 
wood typewriter  had  been  recently  seen  at  his  home, 
and  he  said,  if  so  it  must  have  belonged  to  one  of 
four  boys  who  had  been  doing  some  "  dope  sheet- 
ing "  with  him.  And  he  named  the  four  boys  who 
had  worked  with  him  on  his  class  work  and  in 
preparing  for  an  examination  in  school. 

Just  about  that  time  Goldstein  and  Milroy  of  the 
Daily  News  came  to  the  State's  Attorney's  office 
with  some  copies  of  work  that  had  been  done  on  this 
Underwood  portable  typewriter. 

The  boys  he  referred  to  were  sent  for,  and  upon 
being  questioned  in  the  office,  stated  that  they  had 
noticed  at  one  time  in  particular  this  portable  type- 
writer in  the  home  of  Nathan  Leopold.  One  of 
them  had  made  some  notes  on  it. 

And  after  talking  to  the  four  boys  himself,  Leo- 
pold was  asked  the  question:  "  Could  it  be  possible 
that  somebody  else  whose  name  you  have  not  men- 
tioned owned  that  typewriter?  "  His  reply  was: 
"  I  think  it  belongs  to  Leon  Mandel."  Leon  Mandel 
was  in  Europe  at  that  time. 

Then  he  was  questioned,  and  by  the  questions  that 
were  asked  of  him  by  the  State's  Attorney,  he  was 
shown  that  if  the  typewriter  belonged  to  Leon  Man- 
del,  it  must  still  be  at  his  home,  and  that  he  agreed 

8z 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to.  He  said  that  he  would  go  out  to  his  home  and 
look  for  the  typewriter;  and  he  did  so,  accompanied 
by  some  of  the  police  officers  from  the  State's  Attor- 
ney's office. 

He  returned,  and  upon  his  return  he  found  that 
Bernard  Hunt,  the  watchman,  who  had  picked  up 
the  bloody  chisel  on  49th  and  Greenwood  Avenue, 
was  in  the  office,  and  he  found  that  Englund,  the 
chauffeur  for  the  family,  and  his  wife  were  in  the 
office;  and  he  had  learned  that  Englund  had  told 
the  story  that  on  the  particular  day  in  question  Leo- 
pold's car  was  in  the  garage,  and  that  Leopold  had 
requested  him  to  fix  the  brakes  on  that  car, 

Leopold  and  Loeb  both  now  knew  that  these  facts 
were  in  possession  of  the  State's  Attorney;  and  Loeb 
proceeded  to  tell  his  story,  figuring  if  he  told  his 
story  first  he  might  be  able  to  shift  the  full  respon- 
sibility upon  Leopold, 

And  Leopold,  finding  out  that  Loeb  was  talking, 
said  he  would  tell  the  truth  about  the  whole  matter 
and  he  proceeded  to  tell  his  story. 

And  they  told  it,  and  after  they  told  it  they  were 
both  brought  into  the  same  room,  the  king  and  the 
slave,  and  there  they  sat  facing  each  other  while  one 
stenographer  read  the  statement  of  one  to  the  other, 
and  then  in  turn  back  again. 

Loeb  charged  the  origin  of  the  crime  to  Leopold, 
and  said  that  Leopold  struck  the  four  blows  on  the 
head  of  Bobbie  Franks;  Leopold  denied  it,  and  as- 
serted that  Loeb  was  the  one  who  killed  the  boy. 

82 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

After  going  into  that  in  detail,  they  were  taken 
from  the  State's  Attorney's  office  to  make  the  rounds 
or  to  cover  the  particular  spots  that  they  had  told 
about. 

We  first  went  to  the  Rent-a-Car  people  and  Leo- 
pold was  recognized:  then  to  the  store  on  Wabash 
Avenue  where  Loeb  had  waited  for  a  telephone  call. 
As  Loeb  was  being  identified  here  he  fainted. 

We  then  proceeded  with  Leopold  to  the  hardware 
store  where  the  chisel  and  rope  had  been  purchased 
by  Loeb.  The  clerk  remembered  the  sale.  The  next 
stop  was  at  the  drug  store  whose  proprietor  remem- 
bered selling  the  bottle  of  hydrochloric  acid. 

Next  we  went  to  Leopold's  home  where  the  boots 
and  cap  were  found ;  then  to  the  bridge  from  which 
the  typewriter  had  been  dropped  and  to  the  other 
bridge  where  the  detached  keys  had  been  thrown; 
then  to  the  foot  of  the  lake  where  a  robe  soaked  in 
blood  and  partially  burned  was  found;  and  on  to  the 
other  places  where  the  class  pin,  shoes,  buckle,  etc. 
had  been  thrown. 

On  the  following  day,  your  Honor,  they  were 
again  returned  to  the  State's  Attorney's  office  where 
Dr.  Church,  Dr.  Patrick  and  Dr.  Krohn,  alienists, 
and  also  three  chemists,  were  present,  and  police 
officers;  and  again  they  told  their  stories  as  before. 

And  from  there  into  the  jail  yard,  and  while  in  the 
jail  yard,  your  Honor,  always  looking  out  for  them- 
selves, Leopold  got  into  the  car,  that  car  that  was 
used  when  the  little  boy  was  murdered,  and  Loeb 

83 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

refused  to  get  in  unless  he  could  get  at  the  wheel, 
where  Leopold  was  seated.  He  was  not  going  to 
get  into  the  car,  he  said,  and  have  them  think  that 
he  was  the  one  that  struck  the  foul  blows. 

And  they  returned  to  the  office  and  as  the  doctors 
told  your  Honor  they  were  examined,  and  that  night 
they  were  sent  back  to  the  police  station.  And  the 
next  day,  as  your  Honor  knows,  they  were  taken 
from  the  custody  of  the  State's  Attorney  and  turned 
over  to  the  Sheriff. 

And  after  returning  from  the  Coroner's  inquest 
they  were  brought  into  the  State's  Attorney's  office 
and  there  they  were  asked  if  they  wanted  their  suit- 
cases transferred  to  the  jail,  and  they  said  they  most 
respectfully  declined  to  answer  upon  advice  of 
counsel. 

Does  that  indicate  to  your  Honor  that  Leopold 
and  Loeb  didn't  have  the  capacity  to  follow  instruc- 
tions? And  they  followed  them  to  the  letter  and 
refused  to  talk  and  that  ended  it;  that  ended  the 
State's  case;  that  ended  the  checking  up  on  every 
point  that  they  told  in  their  statement  but  there  was 
not  one  thing,  your  Honor,  that  they  had  mentioned 
that  was  not  traced  and  substantiated. 

And  then  the  letter  from  the  train  that  had  been 
placed  on  there  and  gone  to  four  or  five  different 
cities  was  forwarded  from  New  York,  and  as  Andy 
Russo,  the  electrician  in  the  New  Haven  yard,  told 
your  Honor,  he  found  this  letter  in  the  car,  in  the 
telegraph  blank  box  and  addressed  to  Jacob  Franks. 

84 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

And  then  the  next  step  was  the  finding  of  the 
typewriter.    And  that  was  the  last  straw. 

And  then  counsel  say  that  they  want  you  to  listen 
to  evidence  in  mitigation;  that  you  have  listened  to 
the  evidence  in  aggravation.  And  they  proceed  to 
introduce  their  evidence,  and  the  first  witness,  if  the 
court  please,  that  they  call,  is  Dr.  White  from 
Washington. 

He  starts  off  before  your  Honor,  and  with  all  your 
years  of  experience  I  think  it  would  be  safe  to  say 
that  you  never  before  heard  two  murderers  referred 
to  as  "  Babe  "  and  "  Dickie." 

Then  he  went  on  to  explain  to  your  Honor  the 
reason  why  he  called  Leopold  "  Babe  ":  because  one 
day  he  was  in  the  cell  talking  to  "  Dickie,"  and 
"  Babe "  told  him  that  unless  he  would  call 
him  "  Babe  "  he  wouldn't  play  any  more.  So  he 
proceeded  to  call  Leopold  "  Babe "  and  Loeb 
"  Dickie." 

And  then  he  told  your  Honor  that  he  could  tell 
when  they  were  telling  the  truth,  that  he  could  look 
into  their  minds,  and  that  he  knew  when  they  were 
lying. 

He  then  proceeded  to  tell  your  Honor  about  this 
king-slave  phantasy,  and  about  how  Leopold  looked 
up  to  Loeb  as  the  king,  and  he  is  the  slave,  and  that 
all  the  king  had  to  do  was  to  indicate  to  the  slave 
what  he  wanted,  and  his  wish  would  be  carried  out, 
and  that  the  slave  was  waiting  for  an  opportunity 
to  go  to  Europe,  to  get  away  from  this  plot,  but  he 

85 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

was  unable  to  get  away  from  the  king,  who  had 
him  chained  with  this  golden  chain. 

Then  he  went  on  and  he  told  your  Honor  that  the 
boys  were  mentally  diseased  —  but  not  quite  enough 
to  be  insane. 

And  he  said  he  saw  a  picture,  a  picture  of  the  boy 
Richard  Loeb  in  a  cowboy's  uniform,  and  that  the 
serious  expression  on  his  face  signified  to  him  that 
Loeb  had  a  phantasy,  a  phantasy  to  lead  a  crowd 
,of  criminals,  a  phantasy  to  be  the  leader  of  a  gang. 

And  then  he  told  your  Honor  about  his  stealing, 
that  he  stole  articles  here  and  there,  and  that  he 
burned  up  shacks. 

He  did  not  know  whether  this  bonfire,  or  arson, 
as  he  put  it,  occurred  on  an  election  night,  or  on  a 
Hallowe'en  night,  or  when  it  occurred.  But  it  suited 
his  purpose  to  say  that  Loeb  had  criminalistic  tend- 
encies, and  that  this  was  a  phantasy  of  his,  and  that 
he  had  had  this  phantasy  from  the  time  he  was  a 
little  boy. 

Is  there  anything  unnatural  about  a  little  fellow 
to  burn  shacks,  wagons,  fences?    To  steal?    To  lie? 

And  then,  your  Honor,  he  speaks  of  Leopold's 
philosophy  —  Leopold's  strange  philosophy  of  life, 
this  philosophy  that  made  him  a  superman,  this 
philosophy  that  told  him  so  long  as  he  satisfied  his 
own  pleasures,  it  was  all  right;  that  he  would  weigh 
the  amount  of  pain  with  the  amount  of  pleasure,  and 
if  there  was  greater  pleasure  to  be  derived  than  there 
was  pain,  then  he  would  perform  the  act. 

86 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

And  he  tells  your  Honor  that  that  indicated  to 
him,  that  philosophy,  that  he  was  mentally  diseased. 
And  he  tells  your  Honor  that  this  defendant  Leo- 
pold would  lie  down  and  before  he  would  go  to  sleep, 
he  would  have  phantasies. 

Why,  every  one  has  phantasies,  and  the  only  dif- 
ference between  the  other  people,  your  Honor,  and 
this  defendant  is  that  they  respect  the  law  of  God 
and  man  and  he  respected  neither. 

How  many  men  walking  the  streets  today  have 
evil  phantasies,  or  desires,  your  Honor?  But  they 
pass  them  out  of  their  minds. 

But  not  so  with  this  superman.  As  he  argued  in 
the  criminal  law  class  at  the  University  of  Chicago, 
he  thought  that  a  superman  was  above  the  law. 

Dr.  Hulbert  brings  in  before  your  Honor  his  re- 
port, but  says,  on  cross-examination,  that  the  de- 
fendants, when  being  examined,  would  not  go  into 
certain  things  upon  advice  of  counsel.  And  he  told 
your  Honor  upon  being  questioned  that  if  he  had 
received  the  other  information  that  they  refused  to 
divulge,  his  opinion  might  have  been  different. 

And  if  his  opinion  might  have  been  different,  your 
Honor,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  opinions  of  the 
other  three  doctors  who  relied  on  the  Bowman-Hul- 
bert  report  might  have  been  different,  too. 

In  conclusion,  your  Honor  has  never  had  a  case 
before  you  with  such  evidence  presented  for  mitiga- 
tion as  you  have  had  in  this  case. 

Why,  your  Honor,  at  the  outset  of  this  case,  Mr. 

87 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Darrow  walks  in  before  the  court,  and  makes  a 
virtue  out  of  a  necessity.  He  pleads  both  defend- 
ants guilty  before  your  Honor  to  murder,  and  to  kid- 
naping for  ransom.    There  was  no  escape. 

He  asks  your  Honor  for  mercy,  and  he  tells  your 
Honor  that  they  are  both  youths,  boys.  What 
mercy  did  they  give  that  little  tot? 

Of  course,  your  Honor,  we  all  feel  sorry  for  the 
families  of  these  defendants,  highly  respected  citi- 
zens in  this  community.  Your  Honor  feels  sorry 
for  them,  and  so  do  I;  and  you  feel  sorry  for  every 
family,  because  they  are  the  ones  who  always 
suffer;  and  you  feel  sorry  for  the  Franks  family,  and 
you  feel  sorry  for  the  mother  who  still  believes  that 
her  little  boy  will  yet  return. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Where  is  the  evidence  on  that,  Mr. 
Savage? 

Mr.  Savage:  It  is  a  fair  inference. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Oh! 

Mr.  Savage:  That  is  fair  to  infer,  your  Honor; 
that  that  mother  who  cherished  the  boy  is  still  wait- 
ing for  his  return  from  school;  and  then  they  ask 
your  Honor  for  mercy! 

Why,  your  Honor,  the  law  is  made  for  all  people, 
rich  and  poor,  Jew  or  Gentile,  black  or  white. 

And  these  two  murderers  sitting  before  your 
Honor  are  not  immune  to  that  law.  Justice  sits  by, 
and  the  world  looks  on,  and  this  community,  the 
community,  your  Honor,  where  every  mother  and 
father  should  get  down  on  their  knees  and  give  to 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Almighty  God  their  thanks  that  their  daughter  was 
not  the  victim  of  this  fiendish  conspiracy,  as  Leopold 
planned. 

Why,  Judge,  if  ever  there  was  a  case  in  history 
that  deserves  the  most  severe  punishment,  this  is 
the  case.  And  I  want  to  say,  your  Honor,  that  if 
your  Honor  does  not  hang  both  of  these  murderers, 
it  will  be  a  long  time  in  Cook  County  before  we  ever 
hang  another.  Capital  punishment  will  mean  noth- 
ing in  our  law  and  might  as  well  be  abolished. 

And  I  want  to  say  to  your  Honor  that  the  men 
who  have  reached  the  gallows  prior  to  this  time 
have  been  unjustly  treated,  if  these  two  do  not  fol- 
low. I  know  your  Honor  will  live  up  to  his  full 
responsibility;  and  that  you  will  enforce  the  law  as 
you  see  it  should  be  enforced.  The  people  of  this 
great  community  are  looking  to  your  Honor  to  mete 
out  justice,  that  justice  that  the  murderers  in  this 
case  so  richly  deserve. 

And  when  your  Honor  metes  out  that  justice  we 
will  have  no  more  supermen;  we  will  have  no  more 
men  with  phantasies,  whose  desires  are  to  ravish 
young  children  and  then  murder  them. 

And,  your  Honor,  when  you  inflict  the  extreme 
penalty  in  this  case,  you  will  have  told  the  world 
that  Cook  County  is  a  safe  place  for  one's  children, 
and  that  the  people  will  have  no  fear  for  their 
children's  lives  when  they  are  returning  home  from 
school. 

And  you  will  have  set,  your  Honor,  that  con- 
89 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

fidence  in  our  laws  and  in  our  justice  that  will  waver 
if  we  fail  to  see  that  the  defendants  here  are  prop- 
erly punished. 

You  will  so  stabilize  the  administration  of  the  law 
here  that  all  will  realize  that  it  applies  to  them  no 
matter  what  their  station  in  life  may  be. 

And  without  going  into  it,  your  Honor,  your  Honor 
well  knows  what  juries  have  said  in  your  court  room, 
and  in  other  court  rooms  since  your  Honor  has 
been  the  Chief  Justice  of  this  court,  that  murder 
must  stop,  and  the  only  way  you  will  stop 
murder  is  by  hanging  the  murderers;  and  if  your 
Honor  hangs  these  two  murderers,  it  will  set  an 
example  to  the  others,  if  we  have  any  of  them  among 
us,  that  justice  is  swift,  and  that  justice  is  sure,  and 
that  if  they  fail  to  live  up  to  the  law  they  will  re- 
ceive its  sure  and  certain  penalty. 


Speech  of  Walter  Bachrach 
If  Your  Honor  Please,  Gentlemen: 

THE  position  of  the  defense  in  this  case  has 
been  much  distorted  in  the  arguments  of  the 
State's  Attorneys  who  have  preceded  me,  as  well 
as  in  the  daily  press,  and  therefore  it  is  my  desire 
at  the  outset  to  make  clear  our  position  with  regard 
to  the  subject  of  mental  disease  in  this  case. 

We  raise  no  issue  as  to  the  legal  sanity  of  these 
defendants  and  make  no  contention  that  by  reason 

90 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

of  the  fact  that  they  are  suffering  from  a  diseased 
mental  condition,  there  should  be  any  division  or 
lessening  of  the  responsibility  to  answer  for  the 
crime,  the  commission  of  which  they  have  confessed. 
We  do  assert  that  they  are  suffering  and  were  suf- 
fering at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  crime 
charged  from  a  diseased  mental  condition,  but  we  do 
not  concern  ourselves  with  the  question  of  whether 
such  mental  disease  would  constitute  in  the  present 
case  a  defense  to  the  charge  of  murder.  By  the 
pleas  of  guilty  the  defendants  have  assumed  com- 
plete responsibility  for  the  crime  of  murder,  and 
this  is  in  nowise  a  proceeding  in  which  an  effort  is 
being  made  to  lessen  that  responsibility. 

The  subject  matter  of  this  proceeding  is  the  as- 
sessment of  punishment  for  the  crime  committed  and 
such  assessment  is  placed  by  our  law  within  the 
discretion  of  your  Honor.  Our  statute  provides  that 
the  crime  of  murder  shall  be  punishable  by  a 
sentence  of  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  a 
period  of  not  less  than  fourteen  years,  or  for  life,  or 
by  death.  Where  there  has  been  a  plea  of  guilty 
to  such  crime,  as  in  this  case,  the  statute  pro- 
vides, ''  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to  hear 
witnesses  in  aggravation  and  mitigation  of  the 
offense." 

The  crime  has  been  judicially  confessed  by  the 
pleas  of  guilty.  Complete  criminal  responsibility 
has  been  assumed  by  the  defendants,  and  your 
Honor  is  now  in  this  proceeding  hearing  witnesses 

91 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

in  aggravation  and  mitigation  of  the  offense  as  a 
basis  for  the  assessment  of  the  punishment. 

It  is  as  though  there  were  before  your  Honor  a 
sort  of  sHding  scale  with  imprisonment  in  the  pen- 
itentiary for  fourteen  years  at  one  end  and  punish- 
ment by  death  at  the  other,  and  as  though  it  were 
your  Honor's  duty  to  set  the  indicator  at  some  point 
upon  this  scale.  The  whole  subject  matter  being 
discussed  here  and  upon  which  the  evidence  is  being 
introduced  and  the  witnesses  heard,  relates  directly 
and  solely  to  the  question  at  what  point  upon  that 
sliding  scale  your  Honor  should  fix  the  indicator  and 
thereby  determine  the  punishment  to  be  imposed 
upon  the  defendants  for  the  crime  to  which  they 
have  pleaded  guilty. 

It  is  our  position  that  the  defendants  are  suffer- 
ing and  were  suffering  at  the  time  of  the  commis- 
sion of  the  crimes  with  which  they  are  charged  from 
a  diseased  condition  of  the  mind,  and  that  such  dis- 
eased mental  condition  of  each  defendant  is  a  cir- 
cumstance which  should  be  considered  by  this  court 
in  the  determination  of  the  proper  sentence  to  be 
imposed  upon  them. 

The  consequences  —  the  objective  anti-social  con- 
sequences —  of  murder  are  precisely  the  same  in 
every  case.  In  a  case  where  a  victim  is  struck  upon 
the  head  four  times,  the  anti-social  consequences  of 
that  murder  are  just  the  same  as  if  that  person  had 
been  struck  but  once.  If  the  act  is  done  with  malice, 
so  far  as  society  is  concerned,  it  is  murder. 

92 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

But  your  Honor  may  hear  evidence  in  mitigation. 
To  do  this  it  is  necessary  to  pass  upon  the  offender. 
Let  me  illustrate.  A  man  who  believes  his  wife 
has  been  seduced  by  another,  kills  that  other  man. 
The  anti-social  consequences  of  that  act  are  the 
same  as  if  he  had  had  no  such  belief  in  his  mind  at 
the  time  of  the  killing.  The  other  man  has  been 
killed,  and  the  shooting  was  done  with  malice. 

But,  under  the  statute,  in  fixing  the  punishment, 
your  Honor  looks  to  see  if  there  was  anything  lessen- 
ing the  turpitude  of  the  offender.  Was  there  some- 
thing in  his  reaction  to  a  given  situation  which 
creates  a  circumstance  which  the  court  ought  to 
consider  in  mitigation  of  the  punishment? 

There  are  many  persons  who  walk  the  streets  who 
are  subject  to  mental  disease  falling  short  of  the 
legal  definition  of  insanity,  and  when  one  of  these 
persons  commits  a  homicide  and  admits  the  crime, 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  there  is  any  mitiga- 
tion requires  an  assessment  of  the  circumstances 
pertaining  to  the  character  of  the  offender. 

Now  there  is  an  analogy,  if  your  Honor  please, 
between  mental  disease  and  youth.  Youth  in  a 
criminal  is  a  mitigating  circumstance.  Youth  in- 
volves a  question  of  stress  and  strain  of  puberty  and 
adolescence.  Your  Honor  will  recall  some  of  the 
evidence  in  this  case  to  the  effect  that  a  child  is  born 
without  morals,  and  as  a  result  of  education,  teach- 
ing by  others,  he  in  time  acquires  a  sense  of  moral 
values. 

93 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

A  person  with  mental  disease  likewise  has  a  lack 
of  fixed  social  habits.  Mental  disease  is  primarily 
the  inability  on  the  part  of  the  person  suffering  to 
make  a  successful  adjustment  to  the  environment 
in  which  he  lives  and,  therefore,  a  person  suffering 
from  a  mental  disease  is  in  relatively  the  same  posi- 
tion as  a  child  who  has  not  been  able,  by  reason  of 
lack  of  time,  lack  of  experience,  lack  of  opportunity, 
to  form  fixed  social  habits,  and  make  proper  adjust- 
ments to  a  complex  world. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  has  been  judicially  recog- 
nized by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Nebraska  in  Tracy 
vs.  The  State,  64  N.  W.,  io6g,  that  youth,  diseased 
mental  condition,  and  numerous  other  factors  of  a 
similar  character,  should  be  taken  into  consideration 
by  the  court  in  fixing  the  punishment. 

Your  Honor  has  ruled  that  such  evidence  is  ad- 
missible on  the  question  of  mitigation  of  punish- 
ment, and  I  take  it,  in  view  of  that  ruling,  and  in 
view  of  that  case,  which  is  the  only  case  squarely 
passing  upon  the  question,  we  have  a  right  to  assume 
that  if  the  defense  has  established  mental  disease  in 
this  case,  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  have  your 
Honor  consider  it  as  a  mitigating  circumstance 
here. 

The  State's  Attorneys  have  laid  much  stress  upon 
the  proposition  that  your  Honor  ought  to  follow 
the  law  and  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  the 
impression  that  there  is  some  sort  of  a  legal  prece- 
dent somewhere  which  requires  your  Honor  to  im- 

94 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

pose  a  death  penalty  in  this  case.  There  is  no  such 
law. 

Your  Honor  has  been  given  the  discretion,  in 
cases  where  pleas  of  guilty  are  entered,  to  fix  a 
penalty  anywhere  between  a  minimum  and  a  maxi- 
mum term  of  years,  or  at  death. 

Your  Honor  stands  in  the  relationship  of  a  father 
to  these  defendants.  Every  judge  does.  Every 
man  in  his  heart  knows  that  the  judge  on  the  bench 
is  his  father;  his  punisher,  when  he  is  wrong;  that 
he  must  come  before  him  and  receive  his  chastise- 
ment. But  when  he  comes  before  his  legal  father 
on  a  plea  of  guilty,  that  father  is  faced  with  the 
duty  which  every  father  has  of  desiring  understand- 
ing of  the  wrongdoer,  and  what  it  was  that  brought 
about  the  situation,  before  the  punishment  is  in- 
flicted. It  is  so  easy  to  hang;  the  important  prob- 
lem is  put  out  of  sight.  It  requires  more  intelligence 
to  investigate. 

Your  Honor,  don't  the  very  circumstances  of  this 
crime,  the  details  of  which  we  have  heard  recited 
here  a  number  of  times  —  recited  with  emphasis, 
with  adverbs  and  adjectives  —  don't  these  circum- 
stances show  abnormal  mental  condition? 

Let  us  start,  if  your  Honor  please,  with  the  first 
of  June.  By  that  time  the  confessions  of  the  boys 
were  in  and  had  been  fully  corroborated.  And  the 
first  thing  the  State's  Attorney  did,  if  your  Honor 
please,  was  to  have  what  Mr.  Darrow  designated  as 
a  "  roundup."    He  sent  out  his  call  for  his  aHenists. 

95 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Why  should  the  idea  of  insanity  ever  have  entered 
Mr.  Crowe's  mind?  The  answer  is  quite  clear  in 
the  testimony  of  one  of  his  own  experts,  Dr.  Patrick, 
when  he  was  asked  his  opinion  upon  his  observations 
made  of  these  defendants  on  the  first  of  June  in  the 
State's  Attorney's  office.  He  said:  "With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  facts  surrounding  this  crime,  exclud- 
ing those  facts,  in  my  opinion  there  is  not  any  evi- 
dence to  show  that  the  boys  were  mentally  diseased 
on  the  2ist  of  May,  1924." 

Excluding  those  facts!  Now,  why  did  he  exclude 
them? 

Because  those  facts  were  of  such  a  peculiar  char- 
acter that  the  first  suggestion  that  would  come  into 
anybody's  mind  would  be  that  it  was  the  act  of  the 
insane  or  mentally  diseased. 

Suppose  that  some  one  were  to  come  to  your 
Honor,  or  to  anybody  who  knows  my  associate,  Mr. 
Darrow,  who  has  known  him  for  years,  and  knows 
the  kindly  individual  that  he  is,  and  say  that  Mr. 
Darrow  had  kidnaped  and  murdered  a  boy  fourteen 
years  old,  and  brought  you  proof  that  he  had  done  it. 
Would  your  Honor  say  that  Mr.  Darrow  was  a 
hardened  murderer,  or  would  you  not  rather  sug- 
gest that  his  mind  had  become  affected? 

Now,  that  was  the  situation,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  was  presented  to  Robert  Crowe.  These  were 
respected  boys,  intelligent,  without  the  earmarks  of 
criminals,  the  sons  of  respected  parents  of  wealth 
and  stability.    When  they  had  confessed  the  crime, 

96 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

what  happened  was  the  very  natural  thing  that 
would  happen  in  a  situation  like  that,  namely,  that 
Mr.  Crowe  would  doubt  their  sanity;  and  doubting 
their  sanity,  he  sent  for  Dr.  Patrick,  Dr.  Church 
and  Dr.  Krohn,  who  came  on  Sunday. 

They  went  through  what  I  regard  as  a  farcical  per- 
formance, and  not  alone  farcical,  but  there  was  some- 
thing terrible  about  it.  Here  is  a  proceeding  being 
conducted  in  the  office  of  the  State's  Attorney  of 
Cook  County,  at  which  there  are  present  anywhere 
from  fifteen  people  up.  Dr.  Patrick  comes  into  the 
room,  and  carries  on  a  little  conversation  with 
Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  about  birds,  about  ornithology. 
A  Httle  later  Dr.  Krohn  comes  in  and  they  have  a 
little  conversation  about  psychology,  about  various 
tests  out  at  the  university. 

Then  they  go  dowTi  in  the  jail  yard,  and  see  the 
automobile.  But  before  that,  Loeb  tells  the  story 
of  this  crime.  There  are  a  few  interruptions,  and 
comments  back  and  forth  by  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr., 
and  Loeb,  and  arguments  between  them  as  to  which 
one  struck  the  fatal  blow.  Then  the  State's  alienists 
leave,  and  they  are  ready  upon  such  observations 
to  come  into  court  and  give  testimony,  the  effect  of 
which  may  send  two  human  beings  to  the  gallows. 

These  alienists,  if  your  Honor  please,  testified 
that  these  boys  are  not  mentally  diseased,  because 
they  did  not  show  evidence  of  mental  disease. 

Their  evidence  is  based  entirely  upon  negative 
findings.    Now,  it  is  a  well  known  principle  of  logic 

97 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

that  you  cannot  prove  a  positive  by  a  negative.  Ten 
thousand  facts  showing  the  absence  of  mental  dis- 
ease would  be  as  easily  toppled  over  as  one  fact  by 
the  proof  of  the  presence  of  a  single  fact  demon- 
strating such  disease. 

Unless  the  alienists  for  the  State  examined  these 
boys  along  the  very  lines  and  upon  the  very  points 
that  the  alienists  for  the  defense  did,  then  the  evi- 
dence of  the  alienists  for  the  State  along  these  lines 
and  on  these  points  is  without  value. 

To  suppose  that  people  are  well  mentally  because 
they  are  oriented  to  time,  space  and  persons,  because 
they  know  who  they  are  and  where  they  are,  recog- 
nize people  about  them,  show  good  memory,  are  logi- 
cal and  coherent  in  their  responses  to  questions 
asked,  is  just  as  naive  as  to  suppose  that  a  person 
is  well  mentally  because  he  is  not  a  raving  maniac. 

Your  Honor  will  recall  that  Dr.  Patrick  testified 
on  cross-examination  that  he  had  never  before  con- 
ducted an  examination  as  to  mental  condition  under 
such  circumstances.  Dr.  Church  had  never  con- 
ducted any  such  examination  under  similar  condi- 
tions. The  only  alienist  for  the  State  who  stated 
that  the  conditions  under  which  the  examination  was 
made  were  favorable  was  Dr.  William  O.  Krohn, 
and  his  conclusions  as  to  the  mental  condition  of  the 
defendants  in  this  case  on  the  21st  of  May,  1924, 
were  based  upon  what  he  called  the  memory,  which 
he  said  was  intact,  the  capacity  of  logical  reasoning, 
and  orientation. 

98 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

I  wish  to  read  an  extract  here  from  "  The  Recog- 
nition of  Insanity  "  by  Eugen  Bleuler,  director  of 
the  psychiatric  clinic  at  Vienna: 

One  must  never  conclude  that  if  there  is  no  affective 
disturbance,  that  therefore  it  is  not  a  case  of  schizo- 
phrenia. Indeed,  under  certain  circumstances,  even  in  a 
pronounced  psychosis  or  mental  disease,  one  can  tempo- 
rarily find  nothing  morbid.  A  negative  finding  without 
prolonged  observation,  therefore,  never  proves  that  the 
patient  is  normal.  It  only  indicates  an  absence  of  proof 
of  the  disease. 

Now,  your  Honor,  when  the  defendants  were  ex- 
amined by  the  defense  alienists  could  the  boys  have 
been  malingering?  Doctors  Singer  and  Krohn, 
State  witnesses,  in  their  book,  "  Insanity  and  the 
Law,"  say: 

Since  simulation  is  not  a  disease,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  there  are  any  characteristic  symptoms.  The  most 
practical  way  to  deal  with  the  problem,  therefore,  seems 
to  be  to  consider  the  points  that  may  be  of  assistance 
in  distinguishing  each  of  the  major  types  of  reaction. 
It  may  be  pointed  out  in  general  that  though  insanity  is 
evidenced  chiefly  by  subjective  signs,  that  is  to  say,  by 
signs  that  are  within  the  individual's  control,  the  simula- 
tion of  insanity  requires  a  knowledge  of  the  various 
types  of  insanity,  and  also  a  capacity  for  self-control 
that  is  possessed  by  very  few.  The  effort  must  be  con- 
tinued day  and  night  under  all  conditions.  Unexpected 
and  unforeseen  circumstances  must  continually  arise  that 
will  distract  the  attention  from  the  purpose  of  deception, 
and  will  betray  to  the  attentive  observer  the  fact  that 
the  complaints  are  not  genuine.  Few  laymen  and  indeed 
few  physicians  possess  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  symp- 

99 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

toms  of  insanity  to  know  how  to  act  in  accordance  with 
any  particular  form  of  insanity.  Even  if  a  man  does 
possess  this  information,  it  would  be  necessary  for  him 
to  think  before  responding  to  any  situation,  and  the  facts 
of  lack  of  spontaneity  and  the  need  for  a  choice  of 
response  will  almost  certainly  give  rise  to  incongruities 
which  cannot  fail  to  excite  suspicion  if  the  observer  is 
on  the  watch  for  them. 

I  quote  the  following  from  page  1259  of  the  trans- 
cript of  evidence.  Dr.  White  on  the  stand: 

Q.  In  making  an  examination  of  a  patient,  what  are 
your  criteria  of  dependability  and  veracity  with  respect 
to  what  the  patient  tells  you?  In  other  words,  can  you 
tell  when  the  patient  is  lying  and  when  he  is  telling 
the  truth? 

A.  The  criteria  are  the  inherent  quality  of  the  evi- 
dence presented  and  its  coherence  with  known  laws  of 
the  operation  of  the  mind.  If  evidence  given  by  a 
patient  departs  from  well  known  laws  of  mental  opera- 
tion, we  have  the  right  to  question  the  veracity  of  the 
patient.  If  it  is  consistent  with  those  well  known  laws, 
we  have  a  right  to  assume,  at  least  for  the  time  being, 
that  a  patient  is  telling  the  truth.  Now,  with  regard  to 
a  specific  statement,  one's  judgment  might  not  be  con- 
clusive, but  if  after  talking  for  hours  and  hours  and  get- 
ting a  description  from  the  patient  of  all  sorts  of  mental 
states  and  attitudes  of  mind,  and  historical  factors,  we 
find  that  the  picture  presents  a  coherent  whole,  that 
it  unfolds  itself  in  accordance  with  the  known  laws  of 
the  operation  of  the  mind,  then  we  know  that  that 
picture  is  substantially  true. 

In  a  brief  interview,  it  might  be  possible  for 
a  normal  person  to  dissemble  in  some  minor  respects 

100 


Th&  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  create  a  suspicion  that  he  might  be  mentally 
diseased.  But  such  dissembling  is  impossible  where 
the  examination  is  conducted  under  conditions  such 
as  existed  when  the  examinations  were  made  by  the 
defense  experts;  examinations  covering  a  long  period 
of  time,  not  made  by  one  expert  alone,  but  made  by 
four,  and  where  the  four  experts  arrive  at  a  common 
understanding  as  to  what  the  facts  are  —  five  ex- 
perts, because  Dr.  Bowman  also  examined  these 
boys,  and,  although  he  did  not  testify,  his  report  is 
in  evidence.  The  book  of  Doctors  Singer  and 
Krohn  corroborates  the  evidence  of  Doctor  White. 

So  that  you  have  the  verity  in  the  different 
examinations  as  to  facts  arrived  at  by  five  experts 
covering  a  long  period  of  time  in  the  case  of  the 
defense's  examination  as  against  the  examination 
made  by  the  State's  experts  in  the  instance  of  Drs. 
Patrick,  Church  and  Krohn  late  one  afternoon,  and 
by  Dr.  Singer  the  next  day,  after  the  boys  had  been 
turned  over  to  the  sheriff  and  taken  from  the  cus- 
tody of  the  State's  Attorney  by  means  of  a  habeas 
corpus  writ,  and  when  they  were  brought  into  Mr. 
Crowe's  office  and  declined  to  answer  any  questions 
about  anything  because  they  had  been  told  by  their 
lawyers  not  to  answer  questions. 

The  impression  is  sought  to  be  created  that  be- 
cause these  boys  were  able  to  repeat  parrotlike  in 
answer  to  the  questions  asked  by  Drs.  Krohn  and 
Singer,  that  they  respectfully  refused  to  answer, 
upon  advice  of  counsel,  therefore,  there  was  no  evi- 

lOI 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

dence  of  mental  disease.  The  absurdity  of  such  a 
position  is  apparent. 

In  the  first  place,  if  your  Honor  please,  these  boys 
are  not  claimed  by  the  defense  to  be  stupid.  There 
is  no  claim  made  that  they  do  not  know  how  to 
reason,  nor  that  they  have  not  good  memory.  There 
is  no  claim  made  that  they  don't  know  where  they 
are.  They  know  things  occur;  they  know  they  are 
being  tried  on  a  plea  of  guilty  as  to  the  question  of 
punishment.     They  have  intelligence. 

The  evidence  is  that  because  of  their  superior 
intellects,  because  they  progressed  at  an  unusually 
great  rate  of  speed,  and  on  account  of  the  slow  de- 
velopment of  their  emotional  life,  a  split  in  the  per- 
sonality of  these  boys  has  occurred. 

That  is,  as  respects  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  we  have 
an  individual  whose  powers  of  reasoning  are  intact, 
which  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  a  paranoid 
personality. 

A  paranoid  personality,  to  begin  with,  must  be  a 
person  of  superior  intellect.  He  must  be  a  person 
who  is  capable  of  reasoning  well.  The  only  trouble 
with  his  logic  is,  he  starts  with  the  wrong  premise, 
and  that  is  what  makes  him  a  paranoiac.  Usually 
he  has  delusions  of  grandeur;  he  has  delusions  that 
he  is  greater  than  anybody  else.  He  identifies  him- 
self with  some  great  religious  character,  with  some 
king,  or  with  some  potentate,  or  with  Christ,  or  with 
God.  And  as  far  back  as  October,  1923,  Leopold 
was  talking  about  the  superman. 

102 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

And  let  me  digress  for  a  moment  merely  to  say- 
that  there  is  no  claim  made  here  that  the  fact  Leo- 
pold believes  he  is  a  superman  entitles  him  to  any 
consideration  for  his  philosophy.  We  are  not  here 
to  defend  his  philosophy. 

What  we  claim  is,  if  the  court  please,  that  the  be- 
lief shows  he  is  mentally  diseased;  that  his  mind  is 
not  functioning  properly;  that  he  has  the  tendencies 
of  what  is  called  a  paranoid  personality. 

I  call  your  Honor's  attention  to  the  letter  dated 
October  lo,  1923,  written  by  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr., 
to  his  co-defendant,  Richard  Loeb.* 

Here  is  a  letter,  if  your  Honor  please,  in  which  a 
superman  in  his  own  estimation  —  which  is  signifi- 
cant not  because  he  is  but  because  he  thinks  he  is 
—  lays  down  the  code  to  be  obeyed  by  his  com- 
panion, Richard  Loeb,  whom  he  generously  also 
allows  to  go  under  the  designation  of  superman,  but 
for  whom  he,  Leopold,  establishes  a  code  of  conduct. 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  contained  in  this  letter 
you  have  the  testimony  of  the  various  fellow  stu- 
dents of  Leopold  at  the  University  of  Chicago,  who 
testified  to  conversations  with  him  in  which  he 
stated  his  conception  of  the  superman,  his  philos- 
ophy of  Hedonism,  his  individualistic  philosophy, 
the  fact  that  he  had  a  right  to  do  anything  if  it 
pleased  him. 

The  fact  that  he  felt  that  he  could  live  out  such 

*  Editor's  Note.  —  The  letter  here  referred  to  by  Mr.  Bach- 
rach  is  printed  in  full  beginning  on  page  222  of  this  volume. 

103 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

a  philosophy  in  a  complicated  world  like  this,  and 
the  fact  that  he  was  to  be  the  judge,  the  sole  judge, 
as  to  whether  a  thing  was  right,  if  it  gave  him  pleas- 
ure, is  evidence  bearing  upon  the  question  as  to 
whether  his  is  a  paranoid  personality. 

In  Messrs.  Singer  and  Krohn's  book  again,  under 
the  head  of  "  Paranoid  Psychoses,"  the  authors  say: 

Assuming,  then,  the  typical  state  of  well  developed 
energy  of  reaction,  the  paranoid  personality  may  be 
described  more  concretely  as  follows:  The  man  is  a  domi- 
nant, aggressive  person,  anxious  to  be  in  the  forefront 
and  careless  of  the  feelings  and  interests  of  others.  He 
takes  life  seriously,  works  hard  and  with  purpose. 

Just  as  Leopold  did.  He  worked  with  his  birds, 
he  was  a  teacher  of  ornithology;  all  the  things  he 
did  required  seriousness  of  purpose  and  hard  work. 

He  is  always  sure  of  himself,  is  satisfied  with  his  own 
views  and  constantly  endeavors  to  impose  them  on  others. 
He  is  quick  to  take  affront,  yet  seldom  fights  openly, 
and  continually  seeks  for  hidden  motives  and  meanings 
behind  the  words  and  acts  of  others  that  do  not  tend 
to  his  own  advantage  or  accord  with  his  own  views. 

Leopold's  letter  to  Loeb  clearly  indicates  all  of  this. 
The  authors  also  say: 

The  increased  feelings  of  interference  with  securing 
personal  satisfaction  lead  to  close  observation  of  the  say- 
ings and  doings  of  others,  with  the  object  of  detecting 
plots  and  schemes  that  are  responsible  for  his  own 
failures. 

Note  the  close  observation  here,  if  your  Honor 
please,  as  shown  by  the  letter  of  Leopold  to  Loeb  of 

104 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

October  lo,  1923,  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  his 
friend  Richard  Loeb.  Note  the  close  observation 
of  the  fact  that  Loeb  made  a  mistake  as  to  who  was 
the  founder  of  Stoicism  and  that  that  constitutes  to 
Leopold  a  greater  crime  even  than  murder. 
Also,  on  page  74: 

Throughout,  the  intelligence  remains  intact;  percep- 
tion is  clear  and  there  is  no  disorientation  in  the  nar- 
rower sense  of  this  term.  Memory  is  good,  in  spite  of 
the  falsifications  in  meaning  and  context  that  have  been 
mentioned.  The  man  remains  in  contact  with  reality, 
active,  alert  and  interested  and  there  is  no  tendency  to 
deterioration  or  dementia.  Hallucinations  are  unusual, 
though  they  may  occur  during  periods  of  marked  excite- 
ment. 

Dr.  Krohn  testified  that  he  based  his  judgment 
as  to  the  absence  of  mental  disease  of  Leopold,  upon 
his  memory,  his  logical  processes,  and  his  orienta- 
tion, and  his  senses:  but  these  are  all  shown  by  his 
own  book  to  be  no  evidence  that  a  mental  disease 
did  not  exist,  but  are  entirely  compatible  with  the 
existence  of  a  paranoid  psychosis. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  they  have  to  say  about 
Loeb. 

On  page  53,  in  discussing  schizophrenic  psychosis, 
or  dementia  praecox,  appears  this  statement: 

Schizophrenia,  literally  translated,  means  splitting  of 
the  mind.  It  is  not  possible  to  look  inside  of  the  mind; 
hence,  conclusions  concerning  its  operation  are  based  on 
observation  of  what  the  person  says  and  does,  these 

105 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

being  the  resultants  of  his  mental  activity.  In  this 
category  must  be  included  the  activities  of  the  involun- 
tary muscles  and  glands,  which  cooperate  in  every  ac- 
tivity of  the  body,  and  play  an  especially  prominent 
role  in  such  as  are  accompanied  by  emotion. 

Then  it  is  further  said  here: 

The  intelligence  of  schizophrenic  persons  is  usually 
good  and  is  often  above  the  average.  Indeed,  it  seems 
probable  that  high  grade  intelligence  is  necessary  for 
the  development  of  this  mode  of  reaction.  In  certain 
respects,  the  reactions  are  exaggerations  or  caricatures 
of  the  modification  of  primitive  instinctive  adjustments 
that  make  social  existence  possible  and  that  is  brought 
about  by  the  evolution  of  symbolic  thinking. 

The  facts  are  usually  far  better  explained  by  recogniz- 
ing that  there  has  been  a  failure  to  establish  memories 
or  associations  (intellectual  deficiency)  as  a  result  of  the 
unusually  early  and  extensive  development  of  a  tendency 
to  autism  which  we  shall  discuss  shortly.  Typically, 
perception  and  the  formation  of  memories  with  clear 
grasp  and  orientation  are  fully  up  to  the  average.  The 
trouble  lies  not  in  the  quality  of  the  intellectual  tools, 
but  in  the  use  that  is  made  of  them. 

Again  you  have  a  statement  in  Singer  and  Krohn's 
own  book  that  the  fact  that  judgment  was  pos- 
sessed, orientation  was  possessed,  memory  was  pos- 
sessed, is  no  indication  that  in  Loeb  there  are  not 
the  schizophrenic  tendencies  developing  into  a 
psychosis. 

I  continue  reading  from  this  volume,  published  at 
a  very  appropriate  time: 

1 06 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

We  have  described  the  essence  of  the  schizophrenic 
reaction  as  a  bashful  timidity  associated  with  lack  of 
energy'.  Consequently,  the  situations  that  will  render  it 
manifest  are  such  as  require  self-assertion  and  active 
participation  in  the  world  of  reality.  So  long  as  the 
individual  can  keep  within  himself  and  avoid  the  neces- 
sity for  rubbing  shoulders  with  his  fellows,  he  may  show 
but  little  evidence  of  difficulty.  But  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  even  with  himself,  there  are  desires  struggling 
for  expression  and  gratification  toward  which  he  may  be 
just  as  timid  as  he  is  toward  other  persons.  Obviously, 
the  period  of  life  during  which,  as  a  rule,  the  demands 
for  adjustment  will  be  least  is  that  of  childhood.  Then, 
responsibilities  are  few  and  instinctive  desires  are  rela- 
tively simple  and  but  little  subject  to  social  regula- 
tion. The  sexual  and  parental  instincts  are  as  yet  only 
foreshadowed  and  it  is  in  this  sphere  especially  that 
society  places  the  greatest  restrictions  on  individual 
behavior. 

The  schizophrenic  child  is  quiet  and  retiring,  prefers 
solitary  games  and  amusements,  and  lacks  the  aggressive 
spontaneity  and  outspoken  sensuality  of  the  average 
child.  He  does  not  get  into  mischief  and  is  often  de- 
scribed as  "  unusually  good,"  "  never  caused  a  moment's 
trouble,"  docile  and  easily  amused.  He  may  be  fairly 
even  tempered  and  yet  subject  to  rather  violent  and 
perhaps  unexpected  outbursts  of  emotion  on  seemingly 
small  occasion,  usually  short-lived.  He  is  affectionate 
though  undemonstrative  and  displays  his  feelings  little. 
He  makes  few  friends  and  no  confidants ;  in  group  games 
he  is  often  on  the  outside  looking  in,  rather  than  an 
active  participant.  This  is  not  due,  necessarily,  to  an 
ineptitude  for  athletic  activities  —  he  may  even  excel  in 
them  —  but  to  the  difficulty  in  getting  outside  himself. 

In  school  he  often  does  extremely  well  so  far  as  scho- 

107 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

lastic  acquisitions  are  concerned.     He  is  liable  to  be 
absorbed  in  books  — 

All  of  which  applies  literally  to  Richard  Loeb  — 
Mr.  Crowe:  Mr.-  Bachrach,  the  statement  "  All 

of  which  applies  literally  to  Richard  Loeb,"  is  not 

in  the  book,  is  it? 
Mr.  Bachrach:  No.    The  book  was  written  before 

this  case  arose.    I  continue  reading: 

He  is  liable  to  be  absorbed  in  books  and  especially  in 
topics  that  are  philosophic  and  abstract  rather  than 
those  that  would  bring  him  into  dealing  with  the  real 
and  the  concrete.  Often  the  school  successes  give  rise 
to  hopes  of  a  brilliant  future,  incapable  of  realization 
because  of  the  impossibility  of  effectively  meeting  reality. 

As  the  stronger  passions  and  feelings  develop,  the 
difficulties  in  expressing  them  become  proportionately 
greater  and  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  for  the  youth 
to  shut  himself  up  within  himself  (autism)  and  to  dream 
rather  than  to  react  openly.  The  process  of  repression 
and  substitution  results  in  the  appearance  of  mannerisms 
and  oddities  in  behavior,  often  with  increased  bashful- 
ness  and  awkward  clumsiness,  when  the  schizophrenic  is 
obliged  to  mix  with  others  or  when  his  desires  and  feel- 
ings are  touched  on. 

Oftentimes,  these  persons  develop  wonderful  dreams 
of  the  futures  for  which  they  are  destined,  but  these 
remain  as  veritable  '  castles  in  Spain,'  unpractical  and 
without  the  application  that  would  be  necessary  to  bring 
them  to  fruition. 

The  dreams  and  plans  are  vague  and  indefinite,  though 
possibly  highly  colored,  and  little  consideration  is  given 
to  the  practical  facts  of  the  situation.  The  mood  is  often 
exalted,  but  instead  of  leading  to  increased  activity  and 

1 08 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

sensual  interest,  it  takes  the  form  rather  of  an  ecstatic 
dreaming.  On  the  other  hand,  the  mood  may  be  of 
depressive  color  and  is  then  evidenced  by  fretful  worry- 
ing, with  irritability,  and  is  ineffective  in  producing  any 
change  in  the  situation. 

Sometimes  it  is  rather  a  moody  brooding,  with  occa- 
sional outbursts  of  violence. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  assume  that  every  person 
with  a  schizophrenic  trend  is  going  to  develop  a  psychosis 
or  become  insane.  Very  many  never  do  so  at  all,  possi- 
bly because  the  complexes  that  are  split  off  do  not  in- 
volve a  very  large  part  of  the  man's  personality,  or 
because  the  conditions  under  which  he  has  to  live  do  not 
make  demands  that  he  cannot  meet  sufficiently  well  to 
'  get  by.'  One  of  the  subgroups  of  dementia  praecox 
comprises  such  individuals  under  the  name  of  dementia 
simplex.  They  do  not  often  come  under  the  observation 
of  the  psychiatrist  and  have  had  little  importance  for 
the  medical  jurist.  It  is  readily  intelligible,  however, 
that  the  outbreak  of  a  psychosis  is  especially  liable  to 
occur  when  special  demands  in  the  way  of  responsibility 
and  direct  contact  with  the  real  world  are  made.  One 
such  period  is  that  of  leaving  school  and  emancipation 
from  home  control;  another  is  concerned  with  the  prob- 
lems of  puberty,  marriage  and  the  establishment  of  a 
home. 

In  this  connection  let  me  call  your  Honor's  at- 
tention to  the  evidence  that  until  he  w^as  fourteen 
years  of  age,  Richard  Loeb  had  been  completely 
under  the  control  and  domination  of  a  governess. 
At  fourteen  she  ceased  to  be  his  governess,  and  at 
that  time  he  entered  college. 

It  was  a  time  when  he  had  reached  puberty  and 

109 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

was  approaching  adolescence.  It  was  a  time  when  he 
was  taken  from  that  home  shelter,  from  the  shelter 
of  this  governess  and  from  her  domination  and  con- 
trol, from  the  woman  who  up  to  that  time  had 
solved  all  of  his  problems  with  the  world. 

That  was  gone,  and  he  suddenly  was  put  in  an 
environment,  a  fourteen-year-old  boy  in  college, 
associated  with  boys  of  eighteen,  nineteen,  twenty 
and  twenty-one,  facing  the  necessity  for  meeting  life 
as  these  boys  and  young  men  were  meeting  life,  and 
thereby  being  put  in  a  position  where  excessive  de- 
mands for  adjustment  to  life  would  be  suddenly 
placed  on  him.  He  already  had  started  in  as  a  child, 
as  a  schizophrenic  personality,  whose  tendency  to- 
ward schizophrenia  had  been  cultured  and  fostered 
by  the  particular  type  of  care  and  attention  and  lack 
of  understanding  which  he  had  received  from  his 
governess.     I  continue  the  reading: 

We  would  again  emphasize  the  fact  that  we  are  not 
here  describing  dementia  praecox,  but  only  a  reaction 
type.  There  will,  therefore,  be  no  subdivision  into  the 
types  of  that  disease.  It  will,  however,  be  necessary 
to  speak  of  the  deterioration,  so-called,  that  seems  to  be 
the  logical  outcome  of  the  psychosis. 

First,  it  should  be  said  that  the  intellectual  mechanism 
remains  undamaged,  though  this  is  not  always  easy  of 
demonstration  because  the  patient  is  more  or  less  inac- 
cessible to  study  and  examination.  The  difficulty  is  in- 
creased by  the  fact  that  absorption  in  the  dream  world, 
which  we  find  characteristic  of  the  schizophrenic  per- 
sonality, is  here  exaggerated  to  such  a  degree  that  the 

no 


The  Loeb-Lcopold  Case 

real  world  may  be  entirely  ignored  and  the  man  may 
fail  to  use  his  powers  of  perception  and  grasp.  In  conse- 
quence, he  establishes  only  scanty  and  haphazard  mem- 
ories of  what  transpires  around  him  and  may  thus  seem 
to  have  lost  his  memory. 

Now,  the  evidence  here  with  respect  to  Richard 
Loeb  is  that  he  started  in  as  a  child  to  have  a 
peculiar  type  of  phantasy.  He  had  a  phantasy  of 
being  in  jail,  of  being  looked  at  by  women  through 
the  bars,  that  he  was  in  a  jail  yard  with  women  and 
men  who  were  naked,  and  he  felt  ashamed. 

We  have,  therefore,  in  him  a  peculiar  type  of 
phantasy,  which  is  different  from  the  normal  phan- 
tasies that  everybody  has,  and  which  have  a  very 
definite  function;  they  cause  the  development  of 
ambition,  they  cause  the  development  of  all  those 
things  which  will  carry  the  individual  forward. 

Ordinarily,  normal  phantasies  will  do  that.  But 
a  phantasy  to  be  normal  must  be  one  that  has  a 
definite  relation  to  the  environment  of  the  indi- 
vidual. In  other  words,  a  small  child  has  phantasies 
of  being  a  policeman,  of  being  a  fireman,  or  of  being 
whatever  his  father  is. 

If  it  is  a  girl,  she  phantasies  the  type  of  person 
her  mother  is.  She  phantasies  herself  as  being  a 
wonderful  person.  She  has  all  sorts  of  phantasies 
which  are  noble  in  character  and  which  tend  to  the 
development,  to  the  maintaining  of  life,  so  to  speak, 
and  to  the  enlargement  of  the  individual. 

They  are  also  compensatory.  As  the  individual 
III 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

becomes  older,  as  time  goes  on,  he  finds  that  some  of 
the  things  he  phantasied  about  as  a  child,  things 
that  he  wanted  to  have,  what  he  wished  to  be,  are 
incapable  of  fulfillment.  And  he,  therefore,  uses  his 
phantasy  life  to  satisfy  this  craving,  these  unsatis- 
fied wishes  which  he  has,  and  he  lives  out  in  his 
phantasy  the  kind  of  a  life  which  is  denied  to  him 
in  this  world.    Those  things,  of  course,  are  normal. 

In  the  case  of  Richard  Loeb,  we  find  he  starts 
in  as  a  child  of  four  and  a  half  or  five  years  of  age 
and  has  abnormal  phantasies,  which  have  not 
changed  as  his  position  in  life  has  changed,  and  as 
he  has  become  older,  but  these  abnormal  phantasies 
have  continued  until  he  is  in  jail  at  the  age  of  nine- 
teen, charged  with  a  kidnaping  and  murder.  And 
he  has  the  same  abnormal  phantasies  even  now  in 
jail. 

Were  Singer,  Krohn  and  Patrick  looking  for  any- 
thing like  that?  Of  course,  they  were  not.  Their 
position  was:  "  Prima  facie  you  are  sane.  Prima 
facie  you  are  mentally  healthy.  We  must  be 
shown."  Therefore,  they  took  the  position  that  if 
evidence  was  not  produced  before  them  on  one  after- 
noon, on  the  first  of  June,  that  the  boys  were  men- 
tally diseased,  then  there  was  a  conclusive  presump- 
tion to  be  drawn  against  the  presence  of  such 
disease. 

On  page  765  of  the  Ninth  Edition  of  Church  and 
Peterson  on  Nervous  and  Mental  Diseases,  appears 
the  following: 

112 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

The  examination  of  a  patient  with  mental  disorder  is 
a  much  more  complex  process  than  that  of  a  physical 
disorder,  for  it  is  necessary  in  the  former  not  only  to 
ascertain  the  present  physical  condition  as  with  ordinary 
patients,  but  also  to  investigate  the  mental  state,  which 
involves  the  employment  of  unusual  and  new  methods, 
and  brings  us  into  contact  with  a  novel  series  of  psychic 
phenomena;  and,  moreover,  to  attain  our  end  we  need 
to  study  the  whole  past  life  of  the  patient,  his  diseases, 
his  accidents,  schooling,  occupation,  environment  and 
character. 

Nor  can  we  stop  here,  for  it  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance to  inform  ourselves  as  to  conditions  among  his 
antecedents  to  determine  the  type  of  family  from  which 
he  sprang,  and  the  presence  or  absence  of  an  hereditary 
taint.  There  is  therefore  much  to  learn  even  before 
seeing  the  patient  in  person. 

Did  Patrick,  did  Church,  did  Singer,  did  Krohn 
do  any  of  that?  Why,  they  said  they  never  saw 
the  boys  before  their  examinations  and  never  made 
any  investigations  about  them. 

I  quote  from  page  774  of  this  same  volume: 

It  was  Schopenhauer  who  said  that  insanity  is  a  long 
dream  and  a  dream  brief  insanity.  There  is  in  fact  more 
than  a  superficial  resemblance  between  dreams  and  in- 
sanity, so  much  so  that  psychiatrists  the  world  over  are 
devoting  themselves  to  the  study  of  dreams  as  a  part 
of  their  clinical  and  psychiatric  work. 

There  is  practically  no  phenomenon  that  presents  itself 
in  dreams  that  may  not  be  observed  among  the  inmates 
of  any  asylum  ward. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Bachrach.  There  is 
no  evidence  here  of  any  dreams, 

"3 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Mr.  Bachrach:  There  is  evidence  of  daydreams. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Well,  you  are  not  reading  about  day- 
dreams now,  are  you? 

Mr.  Bachrach:  The  same  thing. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Are  they? 

Mr.  Bachrach:  Daydreams  as  well  as  night 
dreams,  if  your  Honor  please,  indicate  an  undirected 
functioning  of  the  mind.  They,  therefore,  are  not 
subject  to  the  conscious  guidance  of  the  individual, 
and  when  the  psychiatrist  has  submitted  to  him  the 
dreams,  night  dreams  or  daydreams,  of  his  patient, 
he  has  material  that  is  spontaneous,  uncontrolled 
material,  and,  therefore,  material  which  forms  a 
basis  for  a  more  correct  conclusion  than  merely  a 
controlled  history  given  by  the  patient. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Will  you  pardon  me,  just  another 
question? 

Mr.  Bachrach:  Yes. 

Mr.  Crowe:  All  this  you  have  been  reading  about 
deals  with  insanity,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  Bachrach:  Yes. 

Mr.  Crowe:  Is  that  your  defense? 

Mr.  Bachrach:  It  is  not.  The  textbook  which  I 
have  read  deals  with  nervous  and  mental  diseases, 
and  under  the  subject  of  insanity,  as  used  by  those 
gentlemen  as  indicating  a  mental  disease,  and  not 
a  legal  insanity,  they  discuss  these  various  symp- 
toms. 

We  do  not  use  the  word  insanity,  if  your  Honor 
please,  in  this  case,  for  the  simple  reason  that  we 

114 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

are  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  a  legal  defense 
at  all.    Dr.  White,  in  his  book,  says: 

Insanity  should  not  be  used  as  a  medical  term  at  all. 
It  is  solely  a  legal  and  sociological  concept,  and  so 
used  to  designate  those  members  of  the  community  who 
are  so  far  from  able  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  ordinary 
social  requirements  that  the  community  segregates  them, 
forcibly  perhaps,  and  takes  away  their  rights  as  citizens. 
Insanity  is  a  form  of  social  inadequacy,  which  medi- 
cally may  be  the  result  of  many  varieties  of  mental 
disease. 

Messrs.  Church,  Patrick  and  Krohn  failed  to 
comply  with  any  of  the  conditions  laid  down  in 
Dr.  Church's  book  for  the  making  of  a  psychiatric 
examination.  They  stopped  when  they  found  no 
proof  of  disease.  They  did  not  look  for  any  disease, 
although  they  were  put  on  notice  of  its  possible 
existence  by  the  circumstances  of  the  crime. 

Just  take  the  other  side  of  that  picture.  The 
same  facts,  if  your  Honor  please,  as  regards  this 
crime,  served  notice  on  counsel  for  the  defense  of 
the  same  question,  namely,  the  presence  of  mental 
disease,  that  they  served  upon  the  State's  Attorney. 
And  the  defense  arranged  with  a  number  of  able 
and  distinguished  men  to  make  an  examination  of 
these  boys,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  their  mental 
condition  and  reporting  that  mental  condition  to  us. 

They  had  the  facilities  offered  in  the  jail  in  the 
form  of  a  private  cell,  large  enough  for  the  purpose 
of  their  examinations,  where  they  had  privacy,  and 

IIS 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

were  away  from  noises  and  disturbances,  and  from 
large  crowds,  and  where  they  were  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  make  a  thorough  examination. 

Now,  your  Honor  will  recall  that  when  Dr.  Krohn 
was  cross-examined  by  us  as  to  whether  there  was 
anything  besides  what  was  said  by  these  boys  that 
was  taken  into  consideration,  he  said  yes,  the  re- 
actions, how  they  behaved  —  that  that  was  im- 
portant. 

Of  how  much  greater  value  is  the  evidence  of 
what  the  physicians  for  the  defense  have  done. 
Here,  you  have  a  situation  where  a  long  period  of 
time  was  taken,  where  there  were  repeated  examina- 
tions made,  and  under  various  conditions,  by  the 
experts  for  the  defense.  And  they  say  these  boys 
are  mentally  diseased. 

Bowman  and  Hulbert,  the  evidence  shows,  took 
fourteen  days  to  gather  these  facts,  and  the  State's 
alienists  got  enough  in  forty  minutes  to  say  that 
there  was  not  any  evidence  of  mental  disease.  How 
can  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  be  mentioned 
in  the  same  breath  with  that  of  ours? 

To  summarize,  by  way  of  conclusion  of  this  part 
of  the  argument  on  behalf  of  the  defense:  upon  a 
plea  of  guilty  to  the  crime  of  murder,  the  statute 
places  upon  the  court  the  duty  of  hearing  witnesses 
in  mitigation  of  the  offense. 

We  submit  that  this  means  that  the  court,  in  fix- 
ing the  sentence,  must  take  into  consideration  the 
circumstances  in  connection  with  the  offender  in  the 

ii6 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

particular  case.  If  those  circumstances  lessen  the 
turpitude  of  the  offender,  it  is  unquestionably  the 
intent  of  the  Legislature  that  the  court  be  influenced 
by  such  considerations  in  assessing  the  punishment. 

We  further  submit,  that  a  diseased  mental  condi- 
tion in  the  offender,  retarding  his  social  adjustments 
and  making  all  the  more  difficult  the  problems  and 
conflicts  presented  during  adolescence,  is  such  a 
mitigating  circumstance  within  the  meaning  and  in- 
tent of  the  statute.  Moreover,  the  evidence  demon- 
strates the  existence  in  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  of  a 
paranoid  personality,  and  in  Richard  Loeb  of  a 
schizophrenic  condition  of  mind,  which  in  each  boy 
resulted  in  diseased  mental  reactions  and  made  pos- 
sible the  perpetration,  in  combination,  of  the  crimes 
committed. 

We  say  that  it  is  not  the  intent  of  the  law  in  such 
a  case  that  the  penalty  of  death  shall  be  paid  by  the 
offender,  but  that  in  the  light  of  such  mitigating 
circumstances,  the  court,  by  the  exercise  of  a  wise 
and  humane  discretion,  should  assess  punishment  at 
some  point  in  the  field  of  choice  short  of  death,  the 
extreme  penalty  of  the  law. 


117 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Speech  of  Clarence  Darrow 
Your  Honor: 

IT  has  been  almost  three  months  since  the  great 
responsibility  of  this  case  was  assumed  by  my 
associates  and  myself.  I  am  willing  to  confess  that 
it  has  been  three  months  of  great  anxiety;  a  burden 
which  I  gladly  would  have  been  spared  excepting 
for  my  feelings  of  affection  toward  some  of  the 
members  of  one  of  these  troubled  families. 

Our  anxiety  has  not  been  due  to  the  facts  that  are 
connected  with  this  most  unfortunate  affair,  but  to 
the  almost  unheard  of  publicity  it  has  received; 
to  the  fact  that  newspapers  all  over  this  country 
have  been  giving  it  space  such  as  they  have  almost 
never  before  given  to  any  case. 

Almost  every  person  has  formed  an  opinion. 
And  when  the  public  is  interested  and  demands  a 
punishment,  it  thinks  of  only  one  punishment,  and 
that  is  death.  It  may  not  be  a  question  that  in- 
volves the  taking  of  human  life;  it  may  be  a  ques- 
tion of  pure  prejudice  alone;  but  when  the  public 
speaks  as  one  man  it  thinks  only  of  killing. 

We  have  been  in  this  stress  and  strain  for  three 
months.  We  did  what  we  could  to  gain  the  con- 
fidence of  the  public,  who  in  the  end  really  control, 
whether  wisely  or  unwisely. 

It  was  announced  that  there  were  millions  of  dol- 
lars to  be  spent  on  this  case.    Wild  and  extravagant 

ii8 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

stories  were  freely  published  as  though  they  were 
facts.  Here  was  to  be  an  effort  to  save  the  lives  of 
two  boys  by  the  use  of  money  in  fabulous  amounts. 
We  announced  to  the  public  that  no  excessive  use  of 
money  would  be  made  in  this  case  in  any  way.  We 
have  faithfully  kept  that  promise.  The  psychiat- 
rists, as  has  been  shown  by  the  evidence,  are  receiv- 
ing only  a  per  diem,  which  is  the  same  as  is  paid  by 
the  State.  The  attorneys,  at  their  own  request, 
have  agreed  to  take  such  amount  as  the  officers  of 
the  Chicago  Bar  Association  may  think  is  proper. 

If  we  fail  in  this  defense  it  will  not  be  for  lack  of 
money.  It  will  be  on  account  of  money.  Money 
has  been  the  most  serious  handicap  that  we  have 
met.  There  are  times  when  poverty  is  fortunate. 
I  insist,  your  Honor,  had  this  been  the  case  of  two 
boys  of  these  defendants'  age,  unconnected  with 
families  supposed  to  have  great  wealth,  there  is  not 
a  State's  Attorney  in  Illinois  who  would  not  have 
consented  at  once  to  a  plea  of  guilty  and  a  punish- 
ment in  the  penitentiary  for  life.  No  lawyer  could 
have  justified  any  other  attitude.  We  could  have 
come  into  this,  court  without  evidence,  without  argu- 
ment, and  this  court  would  have  given  to  us  what 
every  judge  has  given  to  every  boy  in  Chicago  since 
the  first  capital  case  was  tried. 

Lawyers  stand  here  by  the  day  and  read  cases 
from  the  Dark  Ages,  where  judges  have  said  that  if 
a  man  had  a  grain  of  sense  left,  and  a  child  if  he 
was  barely  out  of  his  cradle,  could  be  hanged  be- 

119 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

cause  he  knew  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong.  Death  sentences  for  as  low  as  fourteen 
years  have  been  cited.  I  have  heard  in  the  last 
six  weeks  nothing  but  the  cry  for  blood.  I  have 
heard  from  the  office  of  the  State's  Attorney  only 
ugly  hate.  I  have  seen  a  court  urged  almost  to  the 
point  of  threats  to  hang  two  boys,  in  the  face  of 
science,  in  the  face  of  philosophy,  in  the  face  of 
humanity,  in  the  face  of  experience,  and  all  the 
better  and  more  humane  thought  of  the  age. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Marshall,  who  dug  up  from  the 
relics  of  the  buried  past  these  precedents  that  would 
bring  a  blush  of  shame  to  the  face  of  a  savage, 
could  also  have  read  this  from  his  beloved  Black- 
stone:  that,  under  fourteen,  though  an  infant  should 
be  judged  to  be  incapable  of  guile  prima  facie,  yet 
if  it  appeared  to  the  court  and  the  jury  that  he  was 
capable  of  guile,  and  could  discern  between  good 
and  evil,  he  might  be  convicted  and  suffer  death. 

Thus  a  girl,  thirteen,  has  been  burned  for  killing 
her  mistress.  One  boy  of  ten,  and  another  of  nine 
years  of  age,  who  had  killed  his  companion,  were 
sentenced  to  death;  and  he  of  ten  actually  hanged. 
Why?  He  knew  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong.    He  had  learned  that  in  Sunday  school. 

Why,  Mr.  Savage  says  age  makes  no  difference, 
and  that  if  this  court  should  do  what  every  other 
court  in  Illinois  has  done  since  its  foundation,  and 
refuse  to  sentence  these  boys  to  death,  no  one  else 
would  ever  be  hanged   in   Illinois.     Well,   I   can 

120 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

imagine  some  results  worse  than  that.  So  long  as 
this  terrible  tool  is  to  be  used  for  a  plaything,  with- 
out thought  or  consideration,  we  ought  to  get  rid  of 
it  for  the  protection  of  human  life. 

Mr.  Savage  —  did  you  pick  him  for  his  name  or 
his  ability  or  his  learning?  —  in  as  cruel  a  speech 
as  he  knew  how  to  make,  said  to  this  court  that  we 
plead  guilty  because  we  were  afraid  to  do  anything 
else.  Well,  it  certainly  was  not  done  to  help  the 
State.    I  hope  we  have  made  no  mistake. 

We  did  plead  guilty  before  your  Honor  because 
we  were  afraid  to  submit  our  cause  to  a  jury.  I 
would  not  for  a  moment  deny  to  this  court  or  to 
this  community  a  realization  of  the  serious  danger 
we  were  in  and  how  perplexed  we  were  before  we 
took  this  step.  But  I  have  found  that  experience 
with  life  tempers  one's  emotions  and  makes  him 
more  understanding  of  his  fellow  man.  When  my 
friend  Savage  is  my  age,  or  even  yours,  he  will  read 
his  address  to  this  court  with  horror. 

I  am  aware  that  as  one  grows  older  he  is  less 
critical.  He  is  not  so  sure.  He  is  inclined  to  make 
some  allowance  for  his  fellow  man.  I  am  aware 
that  a  court  has  more  experience,  more  judgment 
and  more  kindliness  than  a  jury. 

I  know  perfectly  well  that  where  responsibility  is 
divided  by  twelve,  it  is  easy  to  say:  "Away  with 
him."  But,  your  Honor,  if  these  boys  hang,  you 
must  do  it.  You  can  never  explain  that  the  rest  over- 
powered you.    It  must  be  by  your  own  deliberate, 

121 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

cool,  premeditated  act.  It  was  not  a  kindness  to 
you.  We  placed  this  responsibility  on  your  shoul- 
ders because  we  were  mindful  of  the  rights  of  our 
clients,  and  we  were  mindful  of  the  unhappy  families 
who  have  done  no  wrong. 

Now,  let  us  see,  your  Honor,  what  we  had  to  sus- 
tain us.  Of  course,  I  have  known  your  Honor  for 
a  good  many  years.  Not  intimately.  I  could  not 
say  that  I  could  even  guess  from  my  experience 
what  your  Honor  might  do,  but  I  did  know  some- 
thing. I  knew,  your  Honor,  that  ninety  unfortunate 
human  beings  had  been  hanged  by  the  neck  until 
dead  in  the  city  of  Chicago  in  our  history.  We 
would  not  have  civilization  except  for  those  ninety 
that  were  hanged,  and  if  we  cannot  make  it  ninety- 
two  we  will  have  to  shut  up  shop.  Some  ninety 
human  beings  have  been  hanged  in  the  history  of 
Chicago,  and  of  those  only  four  have  been  hanged 
on  the  plea  of  guilty. 

I  knew  that  in  the  last  ten  years  three  hundred 
and  forty  people  have  been  indicted  for  murder  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  and  have  pleaded  guilty  and  only 
one  has  been  hanged !  And  my  friend  who  is  prose- 
cuting this  case  deserves  the  honor  of  that  hanging 
while  he  was  on  the  bench.  But  his  victim  was 
forty  years  old. 

Yes,  we  are  asking  this  court  to  save  these  lives, 
which  is  the  least  and  the  most  that  a  judge  can  do. 

The  State's  Attorneys  invoke  the  dark  and  cruel 
past.    They  say  that  neither  tender  years  nor  con- 

122 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

dition  of  mind  can  mitigate.  I  can  sum  up  their 
argument  in  a  minute:  cruel;  dastardly;  premedi- 
tated; fiendish;  abandoned  and  malignant  heart  — 
sounds  like  a  cancer  —  cowardly;  cold-blooded! 

Now,  that  is  what  we  have  been  listening  to 
against  two  minors,  two  children,  who  have  no  right 
to  sign  a  note  or  make  a  deed. 

Cowardly?  Well,  I  don't  know.  Let  me  tell  you 
something  that  I  think  is  cowardly,  whether  their 
acts  were  or  not.  Here  is  Dickie  Loeb  and  Nathan 
Leopold,  and  the  State  objects  to  anybody  calling 
one  "  Dickie  "  and  the  other  "  Babe  "  although 
everybody  does,  but  they  think  they  can  hang  them 
easier  if  their  names  are  Richard  and  Nathan. 
Eighteen  and  nineteen  years  old  at  the  time  of  the 
homicide.  Here  are  three  officers  watching  them. 
Not  a  chance  to  get  away.  Handcuffed  when  they 
get  out  of  this  room.  Not  a  chance.  Penned  like 
rats  in  a  trap;  and  for  a  lawyer  with  physiological 
eloquence  to  wave  his  fist  in  front  of  their  faces  and 
shout  "  Cowardly!  "  does  not  appeal  to  me  as  a 
particularly  brave  act. 

Cold-blooded?  Why?  Because  they  planned 
and  schemed.  Yes.  But  here  are  the  officers  of 
justice,  so-called,  with  all  the  power  of  the  State, 
with  all  the  influence  of  the  press  to  fan  this  com- 
munity into  a  frenzy  of  hate,  who  for  months  have 
been  planning,  scheming,  contriving,  working  to 
take  these  two  boys'  lives.  You  may  stand  them  up 
on  the  trapdoor  of  the  scaffold,  and  choke  them  to 

123 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

death,  but  that  act  will  be  infinitely  more  cold- 
blooded, whether  justified  or  not,  than  any  act  that 
these  boys  have  committed  or  can  commit. 

I  have  heard  this  crime  described;  this  most  dis- 
tressing and  unfortunate  homicide,  as  I  would  call 
it;  this  cold-blooded  murder,  as  the  State  would  call 
it.  I  call  it  a  homicide  particularly  distressing  be- 
cause I  am  defending.  They  call  it  a  cold-blooded 
murder  because  they  want  to  take  human  lives. 
Call  it  what  you  will. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  have  been  practicing  law  a 
good  deal  longer  than  I  should  have,  anyhow,  for 
forty-five  or  forty-six  years,  and  during  a  part  of 
that  time  I  have  tried  a  good  many  criminal  cases, 
always  defending.  It  does  not  mean  that  I  am 
better.  It  probably  means  that  I  am  more  squeam- 
ish than  the  other  fellows.  It  means  neither  that  I 
am  better  nor  worse.  It  means  the  way  I  am  made. 
I  can  not  help  it.  And  I  have  never  yet  tried  a  case 
where  the  State's  Attorney  did  not  say  that  it  was 
the  most  cold-blooded,  inexcusable,  premeditated 
case  that  ever  occurred.  If  it  was  murder,  there 
never  was  such  a  murder.  If  it  was  robbery,  there 
never  was  such  a  robbery.  If  it  was  a  conspiracy, 
it  was  the  most  terrible  conspiracy  that  had  hap- 
pened since  the  Star  Chamber  passed  into  oblivion. 
I  am  speaking  moderately.  All  of  them  are 
the  worst.  Why?  Well,  it  adds  to  the  credit  of  the 
State's  Attorneys  to  be  connected  with  a  big  case. 
That  is  one  thing.     They  can  say,  "  Well,  I  tried 

124 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  most  cold-blooded  murder  case  that  ever  was 
tried,  and  I  convicted  them,  and  they  are  dead." 
"  I  tried  the  worst  forgery  case  that  ever  was  tried, 
and  I  won  that.  I  never  did  anything  that  was  not 
big."    Lawyers  are  apt  to  say  that. 

And  then  there  is  another  thing,  your  Honor: 
these  adjectives  always  go  well  with  juries  — 
bloody,  cold-blooded,  despicable,  cowardly,  das- 
tardly, cruel,  heartless.  The  twelve  jurors,  being 
good  themselves,  think  it  is  a  tribute  to  their  virtue 
if  they  follow  the  litany  of  the  State's  Attorney. 

I  suppose  it  may  have  some  effect  with  the  court; 
I  do  not  know.  Anyway,  those  are  the  chances  we 
take  when  we  do  our  best  to  save  life  and  reputation. 
"  How  does  a  judge  dare  to  refuse  to  hang  by  the 
neck  until  dead  two  cowardly  ruffians  who  com- 
mitted the  coldest-blooded  murder  in  the  history  of 
the  world?  "    That  is  a  good  talking  point. 

They  say  that  this  was  a  cruel  murder,  the  worst 
that  ever  happened.  I  say  that  very  few  murders 
ever  occurred  that  were  as  free  from  cruelty  as  this 
under  all  fair  rules  of  measurement. 

Of  course,  your  Honor,  I  admit  that  I  hate  killing, 
and  I  hate  it  no  matter  how  it  is  done,  whether  you 
shoot  a  man  through  the  heart,  or  cut  his  head  off 
with  an  axe,  or  kill  him  with  a  chisel,  or  tie  a  rope 
around  his  neck.  I  hate  it.  I  always  did.  I  always 
shall. 

But  there  are  degrees,  and  if  I  might  be  permitted 
to  make  my  own  rules  I  would  say  that  if  I  were 

12=; 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

estimating  what  was  the  most  cruel  murder,  I  might 
first  consider  the  sufferings  of  the  victim.  Now, 
probably  the  State  would  not  take  that  rule.  They 
would  say  the  one  that  had  the  most  attention  in  the 
newspapers.  In  that  way  they  have  got  me  beaten 
at  the  start. 

Bobby  Franks  suffered  very  little.  There  is  no 
excuse  for  his  killing.  If  to  hang  these  two  boys 
would  bring  him  back  to  life,  I  would  say  let  them 
go,  and  I  believe  their  parents  would  say  so,  too. 
But: 

The  moving  finger  writes,  and  having  writ, 
Moves  on;  nor  all  your  piety  nor  wit 

Shall  lure  it  back  to  cancel  half  a  line. 
Nor  all  your  tears  wash  out  a  word  of  it. 

Robert  Franks  is  dead,  and  we  cannot  call  him 
back  to  life.  It  was  all  over  in  fifteen  minutes  after 
he  got  into  the  car,  and  he  probably  never  knew  it 
or  thought  of  it.  That  does  not  justify  it.  It  is  the 
last  thing  I  would  do.  I  am  sorry  for  the  poor  boy. 
I  am  sorry  for  his  parents.    But,  it  is  done. 

First,  I  put  the  victim,  who  ought  not  to  suffer; 
next,  I  would  put  the  attitude  of  those  who  kill. 
What  was  the  attitude  of  these  two  boys?  It  may 
be  that  the  State's  Attorney  would  think  that  it  was 
particularly  cruel  to  the  victim  because  he  was  a 
boy.  Well,  my  clients  are  boys,  too,  and  if  it  would 
make  more  serious  the  offense  to  kill  a  boy,  it  should 
make  less  serious  the  offense  of  the  boys  who  did  the 
killing. 

126 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

This  is  a  senseless,  useless,  purposeless  act  of  two 
boys.  Now,  let  me  see  if  I  can  prove  it.  There  was 
not  a  particle  of  hate,  not  a  grain  of  malice,  there 
was  no  opportunity  to  be  cruel  except  as  death  is 
cruel  —  and  death  is  cruel.  There  was  absolutely 
no  reason  in  it  all,  and  no  motive  for  it  all. 

In  order  to  make  this  the  most  cruel  thing  that  ever 
happened,  of  course  they  must  have  a  motive.  And 
what  do  they  say  was  the  motive?  "  The  motive 
was  to  get  ten  thousand  dollars,"  they  say.  And 
they  would  have  you  believe  they  did  it  to  get  the 
money  because  they  were  gamblers  and  needed  it 
to  pay  gambling  debts. 

What  did  Judge  Crowe  prove?  He  put  on  one 
witness,  and  one  only,  who  had  played  bridge  with 
both  of  them  in  college,  and  he  said  they  played  for 
five  cents  a  point.  Now,  I  trust  your  Honor  knows 
better  than  I  do  how  much  of  a  game  that  would 
be.  At  poker  I  might  guess,  but  I  know  little  about 
bridge. 

But  what  else?  He  said  that  in  a  game  one  of 
them  lost  ninety  dollars  to  the  other.  They  were 
playing  against  each  other,  and  one  of  them  lost 
ninety  dollars.    Ninety  dollars! 

It  would  be  trifling  excepting,  your  Honor,  that 
we  are  dealing  in  human  life.  And  we  are  dealing  in 
more  than  that;  we  are  dealing  in  the  future  fate  of 
two  families.  We  are  talking  of  placing  a  blot  upon 
the  escutcheon  of  two  houses  that  do  not  deserve 
it  for  nothing. 

127 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Did  they  need  the  money?  At  that  time  Richard 
Loeb  had  a  three  thousand  dollar  checking  account 
in  the  bank.  He  had  three  Liberty  Bonds,  one  of 
which  was  past  due,  and  the  interest  on  none  had 
been  collected  for  three  years. 

In  addition  to  that  we  brought  his  father's  pri- 
vate secretary  here,  who  swears  that  whenever  he 
asked  for  it  he  got  a  check,  without  ever  consulting 
the  father.  She  had  an  open  order  to  give  him  a 
check  whenever  he  wanted  it,  and  she  had  sent  him 
a  check  in  February,  and  he  had  lost  it.  So  he  got 
another  in  March. 

How  about  Leopold?  Leopold  was  in  regular 
receipt  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  a 
month;  he  had  an  automobile;  paid  nothing  for 
board  and  clothes,  and  expenses;  he  got  money 
whenever  he  wanted  it,  and  he  had  arranged  to  go 
to  Europe  and  had  bought  his  ticket  and  was  going 
to  leave  about  the  time  he  was  arrested  in  this  case. 
He  passed  his  examination  for  the  Harvard  Law 
School,  and  was  going  to  take  a  short  trip  to  Europe 
before  it  was  time  for  him  to  attend  the  fall  term. 
His  ticket  had  been  bought,  and  his  father  was 
to  give  him  three  thousand  dollars  to  make  the 
trip. 

In  addition  to  that,  these  boys'  families  were  ex- 
tremely wealthy.  The  boys  had  been  reared  in 
luxury,  they  had  never  been  denied  anything;  no 
want  or  desire  left  unsatisfied;  no  debts;  no  need 
of  money.     And  yet  they  murdered  a  little  boy, 

128 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

against  whom  they  had  nothing  in  the  world,  with- 
out malice,  without  reason,  to  get  five  thousand 
dollars  each. 

That  is  what  this  case  rests  on.  It  could  not 
stand  up  a  minute  without  motive.  Without  it,  it 
was  the  senseless  act  of  immature  and  diseased 
children,  as  it  was;  a  senseless  act  of  children,  wan- 
dering around  in  the  dark  and  moved  by  some  emo- 
tion that  we  still  perhaps  have  not  the  knowledge 
or  the  insight  into  life  to  thoroughly  understand. 

Mr.  Marshall  argues  to  this  court  that  you  can  do 
no  such  thing  as  to  grant  us  the  almost  divine  favor 
of  saving  the  lives  of  two  boys,  that  it  is  against  the 
law,  that  the  penalty  for  murder  is  death;  and  this 
court,  who,  in  the  fiction  of  the  lawyers  and  the 
judges,  forgets  that  he  is  a  human  being  and  be- 
comes a  court,  pulseless,  emotionless,  devoid  of 
those  common  feelings  which  alone  make  men,  that 
this  court  as  a  human  machine  must  hang  them  be- 
cause they  killed. 

Now,  let  us  see.  I  do  not  need  to  ask  mercy  from 
this  court  for  these  clients,  nor  for  anybody  else, 
nor  for  myself;  though  I  have  never  yet  found  a 
person  who  did  not  need  it.  But  I  do  not  ask  mercy 
for  these  boys.  Your  Honor  may  be  as  strict  in 
the  enforcement  of  the  law  as  you  please  and  you 
cannot  hang  these  boys.  You  can  only  hang  them 
because  back  of  the  law  and  back  of  justice  and 
back  of  the  common  instincts  of  man,  and  back 
of  the  human  feeling  for  the  young,  is  the  hoarse 

129 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

voice  of  the  mob  which  says,  "  Kill."  I  need  ask 
nothing.    What  is  the  law  of  Illinois? 

If  one  is  found  guilty  of  murder  in  the  first  degree 
by  a  jury,  or  if  he  pleads  guilty  before  a  court,  the 
court  or  jury  may  do  one  of  three  things:  hang; 
imprison  for  life;  imprison  for  a  term  of  not  less 
than  fourteen  years.  Why  was  this  law  passed? 
Undoubtedly  in  recognition  of  the  growing  feeling 
in  all  the  forward-thinking  people  of  the  United 
States  against  capital  punishment.  Undoubtedly 
through  the  deep  reluctance  of  courts  and  juries 
to  take  human  life. 

Your  Honor  must  make  the  choice,  and  you  have 
the  same  right  to  make  one  choice  as  another,  no 
matter  what  Mr.  Justice  Blackstone  says.  It  is 
your  Honor's  province;  you  may  do  it,  and  I  need 
ask  nothing  in  order  to  have  you  do  it.  There  is 
the  statute.  But  there  is  more  than  that  in  this 
case. 

There  was  neither  cruelty  to  the  deceased,  beyond 
taking  his  life  —  which  is  much  —  nor  was  there 
any  depth  of  guilt  and  depravity  on  the  part  of  the 
defendants,  for  it  was  a  truly  motiveless  act,  with- 
out the  shghtest  feehng  of  hatred  or  revenge,  done 
by  a  couple  of  children  for  no  sane  reason. 

But,  your  Honor,  we  have  gone  further  than  that, 
and  we  have  sought  to  show  you,  as  I  think  we  have, 
the  condition  of  these  boys'  minds.  Of  course  it  is 
not  an  easy  task  to  find  out  the  condition  of  another 
person's  mind.    These  experts  in  the  main  have  told 

130 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

you  that  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  the  mind 
is,  to  start  with;  or  to  tell  how  it  acts. 

There  is  some  evidence  somewhere  in  this  record 
that  on  their  way  home  from  Ann  Arbor  they  began 
to  discuss  this  question  of  committing  a  perfect 
crime,  which  had  been  their  phantasy  for  months. 
The  typewriter  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it, 
but  to  make  it  seem  that  they  were  schemers  and 
planners,  that  they  knew  how  to  think  and  how  to 
act,  it  is  argued  that  they  went  all  the  way  to  Ann 
Arbor  in  the  nighttime  to  steal  a  typewriter,  instead 
of  buying  one  here,  or  stealing  one  here,  or  getting 
one  here,  or  using  their  own,  or  advertising  for  one, 
or  securing  one  in  any  of  a  hundred  ways. 

Of  course  it  is  impossible  on  the  face  of  it,  but  let 
us  see  what  the  evidence  is.  They  did  bring  a  type- 
writer from  Ann  Arbor  and  on  that  typewriter  they 
wrote  these  letters,  and  after  the  boy  had  been 
killed  they  threw  the  typewriter  into  the  lagoon, 
after  twisting  off  the  letters.  Why  did  they  twist 
off  the  letters?  Well,  I  suppose  anybody  knows 
why.  Because  one  who  is  fairly  familiar  with  a 
typewriter  knows  that  you  can  always  detect  the 
writing  on  almost  every  typewriter.  There  will  be 
imperfect  letters,  imperfect  tracking  and  imperfect 
this,  that  and  the  other,  by  which  detection  is  ac- 
complished, and  probably  they  knew  it. 

But  mark  this:  Leopold  kept  this  typewriter  in 
his  house  for  six  months.  According  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  maid,  he  had  written  many  letters  on  it. 

131 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

According  to  the  testimony  of  his  tutors  he  had 
written  the  dope  sheets  for  his  law  examination  on 
it;  numbers  of  them.  These  were  still  in  existence. 
The  State's  Attorney  got  them;  the  typewriter  could 
be  identified  without  the  machine  at  all.  It  was 
identified  without  the  machine;  all  that  was  needed 
was  to  show  that  the  same  machine  that  wrote  the 
ransom  letter  wrote  the  dope  sheets  and  wrote  the 
other  letters. 

No  effort  was  made  to  conceal  it  through  all  these 
months.  All  the  boys'  friends  knew  it;  the  maid 
knew  it;  everybody  in  the  house  knew  it.  Were 
they  trying  to  conceal  it?  Did  they  take  a  drive 
in  the  nighttime  to  Ann  Arbor  to  get  it,  together  with 
other  stuff  so  that  they  might  be  tracked,  or  did 
they  just  get  it  with  other  stuff  without  any  thought 
of  this  homicide  that  happened  six  months  later? 

The  State  says,  in  order  to  make  out  the  wonder- 
ful mental  processes  of  these  two  boys,  that  they 
fixed  up  a  plan  to  go  to  Ann  Arbor  to  get  this  ma- 
chine. And  yet,  when  they  got  ready  to  do  this  act, 
they  went  down  the  street  a  few  doors  from  their 
house  and  bought  a  rope;  they  went  around  the 
corner  and  bought  acid;  then  went  somewhere  else 
and  bought  tape;  they  went  down  to  the  hotel  and 
rented  a  room,  and  then  gave  it  up,  and  went  to 
another  hotel  and  rented  one  there.  And  then  Dick 
Loeb  went  to  the  hotel  room,  took  a  valise  contain- 
ing his  library  card  and  some  books  from  the  library, 
left  it  two  days  in  the  room,  until  the  hotel  took  the 

132 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

valise  and  took  the  books.  Then  he  went  to  another 
hotel  and  rented  another  room.  He  might  just  as 
well  have   sent   his   card   with  the   ransom  letter. 

Were  these  boys  normal?  Here  were  two  boys 
with  good  intellect,  one  eighteen  and  one  nineteen. 
They  had  all  the  prospects  that  life  could  hold  out 
for  any  of  the  young;  one  a  graduate  of  Chicago 
and  another  of  Ann  Arbor;  one  who  had  passed  his 
examination  for  the  Harvard  Law  School  and  was 
about  to  take  a  trip  in  Europe;  another  who  had 
passed  at  Ann  Arbor,  the  youngest  in  his  class,  with 
three  thousand  dollars  in  the  bank;  boys  who  could 
reach  any  position  that  was  given  to  boys  of  that 
kind  to  reach;  boys  of  distinguished  and  honorable 
families,  families  of  wealth  and  position,  with  all  the 
world  before  them.  And  they  gave  it  all  up  for 
nothing.     For  nothing! 

How  insane  they  are  I  care  not,  whether  medi- 
cally or  legally.  They  did  not  reason;  they  could 
not  reason;  they  committed  the  most  foolish,  most 
unprovoked,  most  causeless  act  that  any  two  boys 
ever  committed,  and  they  put  themselves  where  the 
rope  is  dangling  above  their  heads.  Why  did  they 
kill  little  Bobby  Franks?  Not  for  money;  not  for 
spite;  not  for  hate.  They  killed  him  as  they  might 
kill  a  spider  or  a  fly,  for  the  experience.  They  killed 
him  because  they  were  made  that  way.  Because 
somewhere  in  the  infinite  processes  that  go  to  the 
making  up  of  the  boy  or  the  man  something  slipped, 
and  those  unfortunate  lads  sit  here  hated,  despised, 

133 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

outcasts,  with  the  community  shouting  for   their 
blood. 

I  heard  the  State's  Attorney  talk  of  mothers.  Mr. 
Savage  is  talking  for  the  mothers,  and  Mr.  Crowe  is 
thinking  of  the  mothers,  and  I  am  thinking  of  the 
mothers.  Mr.  Savage,  with  the  immaturity  of  youth 
and  inexperience,  says  that  if  we  hang  them  there 
will  be  no  more  killing.  This  world  has  been  one 
long  slaughterhouse  from  the  beginning  until  today, 
and  killing  goes  on  and  on  and  on,  and  will  forever. 

Kill  them.  Will  that  prevent  other  senseless  boys 
or  other  vicious  men  or  vicious  women  from  killing? 
No!  It  will  simply  call  upon  every  weak-minded 
person  to  do  as  they  have  done.  I  know  how  easy  it 
is  to  talk  about  mothers  when  you  want  to  do  some- 
thing cruel.  But  I  am  thinking  of  the  mothers,  too. 
I  know  that  any  mother  might  be  the  mother  of  a 
little  Bobby  Franks,  who  left  his  home  and  went  to 
his  school,  and  who  never  came  back.  I  know  that 
any  mother  might  be  the  mother  of  a  Richard  Loeb 
and  a  Nathan  Leopold,  just  the  same.  The  trouble 
is  this,  that  if  she  is  the  mother  of  a  Nathan  Leo- 
pold or  of  a  Richard  Loeb,  she  has  to  ask  herself  the 
question:  "  How  came  my  children  to  be  what  they 
are?  From  what  ancestry  did  they  get  this  strain? 
How  far  removed  was  the  poison  that  destroyed 
their  lives?  Was  I  the  bearer  of  the  seed  that 
brings  them  to  death?  " 

Any  mother  might  be  the  mother  of  any  of  them. 
But  these  two  are  the  victims.    I  remember  a  little 

134 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

poem  that  gives  the  soliloquy  of  a  boy  about  to  be 
hanged,  a  soliloquy  such  as  these  boys  might  make: 

The  night  my  father  got  me 

His  mind  was  not  on  me; 
He  did  not  plague  his  fancy 

To  muse  if  I  should  be 

The  son  you  see. 

The  day  my  mother  bore  me 

She  was  a  fool  and  glad, 
For  all  the  pain  I  cost  her, 

That  she  had  borne  the  lad 

That  borne  she  had. 

My  father  and  my  mother 

Out  of  the  light  they  lie; 
The  warrant  would  not  find  them, 

And  here,  'tis  only  I 

Shall  hang  so  high. 

O  let  not  man  remember 

The  soul  that  God  forgot, 
But  fetch  the  county  sheriff 

And  noose  me  in  a  knot, 

And  I  will  rot. 

And  so  the  game  is  ended. 

That  should  not  have  begun. 
My  father  and  my  mother 

They  had  a  likely  son, 

And  I  have  none. 

No  one  knows  what  will  be  the  fate  of  the  child 
he  gets  or  the  child  she  bears;  the  fate  of  the  child 

135 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

is  the  last  thing  considered.  This  weary  old  world 
goes  on,  begetting,  with  birth  and  with  living  and 
with  death;  and  all  of  it  is  blind  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end.  I  do  not  know  what  it  was  that  made 
these  boys  do  this  mad  act,  but  I  do  know  there  is 
a  reason  for  it.  I  know  they  did  not  beget  them- 
selves. I  know  that  any  one  of  an  infinite  number 
of  causes  reaching  back  to  the  beginning  might  be 
working  out  in  these  boys'  minds,  whom  you  are 
asked  to  hang  because  some  one  in  the  past  has 
sinned  against  them. 

I  am  sorry  for  the  fathers  as  well  as  the  mothers, 
for  the  fathers  who  give  their  strength  and  their 
lives  for  educating  and  protecting  and  creating  a 
fortune  for  the  boys  that  they  love ;  for  the  mothers 
who  go  down  into  the  shadow  of  death  for  their 
children,  who  nourish  them  and  care  for  them,  and 
risk  their  lives,  that  they  may  live,  who  watch  them 
with  tenderness  and  fondness  and  longing,  and  who 
go  down  into  dishonor  and  disgrace  for  the  children 
that  they  love. 

All  of  these  are  helpless.  We  are  all  helpless. 
But  when  you  are  pitying  the  father  and  the  mother 
of  poor  Bobby  Franks,  what  about  the  fathers  and 
mothers  of  these  two  unfortunate  boys,  and  what 
about  the  unfortunate  boys  themselves,  and  what 
about  all  the  fathers  and  all  the  mothers  and  all  the 
boys  and  all  the  girls  who  tread  a  dangerous  maze 
in  darkness  from  birth  to  death? 


136 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

What  is  my  friend's  idea  of  justice?  He  says  to 
this  court,  whom  he  says  he  respects  —  and  I  be- 
lieve he  does  —  your  Honor,  who  sits  here  patiently, 
holding  the  lives  of  these  two  boys  in  your  hands: 
"  Give  them  the  same  mercy  that  they  gave  to 
Bobby  Franks." 

Is  that  the  law?  Is  that  justice?  Is  this  what 
a  court  should  do?  Is  this  what  a  State's  Attorney 
should  do?  If  the  State  in  which  I  live  is  not 
kinder,  more  humane,  more  considerate,  more  intel- 
ligent than  the  mad  act  of  these  two  boys,  I  am 
sorry  that  I  have  lived  so  long. 

I  am  sorry  for  all  fathers  and  all  mothers.  The 
mother  who  looks  into  the  blue  eyes  of  her  little 
babe  cannot  help  musing  over  the  end  of  the  child, 
whether  it  will  be  crowned  with  the  greatest  prom- 
ises which  her  mind  can  image  or  possibly  meet 
death  upon  the  scaffold.  All  she  can  do  is  to  rear 
him  with  love  and  care,  to  watch  over  him  tenderly, 
to  meet  life  with  hope  and  trust  and  confidence, 
and  to  leave  the  rest  with  fate. 

Without  any  excuse,  without  the  slightest  motive, 
not  moved  by  money,  not  moved  by  passion,  by 
nothing  except  the  vague  wanderings  of  children, 
these  boys  rented  a  machine,  and  about  four  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon  started  to  find  somebody  to  kill. 
They  went  over  to  the  Harvard  School.  Dick's 
little  brother  was  there,  on  the  playground.  Dick 
went  there  himself  in  open  daylight,  known  by  all 


137 


The  Loeb'Leopold  Case 

of  them;  he  had  been  a  pupil  there  himself,  the 
school  was  near  his  home,  and  he  looked  over  the 
little  boys. 

Your  Honor  has  been  in  these  courts  for  a  long 
time;  you  have  listened  to  murder  cases  before. 
Has  any  such  case  ever  appeared  here  or  in  any  of 
the  books?  Has  it  ever  come  to  the  human  expe- 
rience of  any  judge,  or  any  lawyer?    Never  once! 

They  first  picked  out  a  little  boy  named  Levinson, 
and  Dick  trailed  him  around.  Now,  of  course,  that 
is  a  hard  story.  It  is  a  story  that  shocks  one.  A 
boy  bent  on  killing,  not  knowing  where  he  would 
go  or  whom  he  would  get,  but  seeking  some  victim. 
Here  is  a  little  boy,  but  the  circumstances  are  not 
opportune;  and  so  he  fails  to  get  him. 

Dick  abandons  that  lead;  Dick  and  Nathan  are 
in  the  car,  and  they  see  Bobby  Franks  on  the  street, 
and  they  call  to  him  to  get  into  the  car.  It  is 
about  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  in  the  long  sum- 
mer days,  on  a  thickly  settled  street,  built  up  with 
homes,  the  houses  of  their  friends  and  their  com- 
panions, automobiles  appearing  and  disappearing, 
and  they  take  him  in  the  car. 

If  there  had  been  a  question  of  revenge,  yes;  if 
there  had  been  a  question  of  hate,  where  no  one 
cares  for  his  own  fate,  intent  only  on  accomplishing 
his  end,  yes.  But  without  any  motive  or  any  reason 
they  picked  up  this  little  boy  right  in  sight  of  their 
own  homes,  and  surrounded  by  their  neighbors. 
They  drive  a  little  way,  on  a  populous  street,  where 

138 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

everybody  could  see,  where  eyes  might  be  at  every 
window  as  they  pass  by.  They  hit  him  over  the 
head  with  a  chisel  and  kill  him. 

They  pull  the  dead  boy  into  the  back  seat,  and 
wrap  him  in  a  blanket,  and  this  funeral  car  starts 
on  its  route.  If  ever  any  death  car  went  over  the 
same  route  or  the  same  kind  of  a  route,  driven  by 
sane  people,  I  have  never  heard  of  it,  and  I  fancy 
no  one  else  has  ever  heard  of  it.  This  car  is  driven 
for  twenty  miles.  First  down  through  thickly  popu- 
lated streets,  where  everyone  knew  the  boys  and 
their  families,  and  had  known  them  for  years,  till 
they  come  to  the  Midway  Boulevard. 

The  slightest  accident,  the  slightest  misfortune, 
a  bit  of  curiosity,  an  arrest  for  speeding,  anything 
would  bring  destruction.  They  go  down  the  Mid- 
way, through  the  park,  meeting  hundreds  of  ma- 
chines, in  sight  of  thousands  of  eyes,  with  the  dead 
boy.  They  go  down  a  thickly  populated  street 
through  South  Chicago,  and  then  for  three  miles 
take  the  longest  street  to  go  through  this  city,  built 
solid  with  business  buildings,  filled  with  automobiles 
backed  upon  the  street,  with  street  cars  on  the  track, 
with  thousands  of  peering  eyes;  Leopold  driving  and 
Loeb  on  the  back  seat,  with  the  corpse  of  little 
Bobby  Franks,  the  blood  streaming  from  him,  wet- 
ting everything  in  the  car. 

Nothing  I  know  of  can  compare  with  it  except  the 
mad  acts  of  the  fool  in  King  Lear. 

And  yet  they  tell  me  that  this  is  sanity;  they  tell 

139 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

me  that  the  brains  of  these  boys  are  not  diseased. 
You  need  no  experts,  you  need  no  X-rays ;  you  need 
no  study  of  the  endocrines.  They  get  through  South 
Chicago,  and  they  take  the  regular  automobile  road 
down  toward  Hammond.  There  is  the  same  situa- 
tion; hundreds  of  machines;  any  accident  might 
encompass  their  ruin.  They  stop  at  the  forks  of 
the  road,  and  leave  little  Bobby  Franks,  soaked  with 
blood,  in  the  machine,  and  get  their  dinner,  and  eat 
it  without  an  emotion  or  a  qualm. 

But  we  are  told  that  they  planned.  Well,  a  ma- 
niac plans;  an  idiot  plans;  an  animal  plans;  any 
brain  that  functions  may  plan;  but  their  plans  were 
the  diseased  plans  of  the  diseased  mind. 

And  still,  your  Honor,  on  account  of  its  weirdness 
and  its  strangeness,  and  its  advertising,  we  are  forced 
to  fight.  For  what?  Forced  to  plead  to  this  court 
that  two  boys,  one  eighteen  and  the  other  nineteen, 
may  be  permitted  to  live  in  silence  and  solitude  and 
disgrace  and  spend  all  their  days  in  the  penitentiary. 

I  can  not  understand  it,  your  Honor.  It  would 
be  past  belief,  excepting  that  to  the  four  corners  of 
the  earth  the  news  of  this  weird  act  has  been  car- 
ried, and  the  intellect  has  been  stifled,  and  men 
have  been  controlled  by  passions  which  should  have 
died  centuries  ago. 

My  friend  Savage  pictured  to  you  the  putting  of 
this  dead  boy  in  this  culvert.  Well,  no  one  can 
minutely  describe  any  killing  and  not  make  it  shock- 
ing.   It  is  shocking  because  we  love  life  and  because 

140 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

we  instinctively  draw  back  from  death.  It  is  shock- 
ing wherever  it  is  and  however  it  is,  and  perhaps  all 
death  is  almost  equally  shocking. 

But  here  is  the  picture  of  a  dead  boy,  past  pain, 
when  no  harm  can  come  to  him,  put  in  a  culvert, 
after  taking  off  his  clothes  so  that  the  evidence 
would  be  destroyed;  and  that  is  pictured  to  this 
court  as  a  reason  for  hanging.  Well,  your  Honor, 
that  does  not  appeal  to  me  as  strongly  as  the  hitting 
over  the  head  of  little  Robert  Franks  with  a  chisel. 
The  boy  was  dead. 

Your  Honor,  I  can  think  of  another  scene.  I  can 
think,  and  only  think,  your  Honor,  of  taking  two 
boys,  one  eighteen  and  the  other  nineteen,  irrespon- 
sible, weak,  diseased,  penning  them  in  a  cell,  check- 
ing off  the  days  and  the  hours  and  the  minutes, 
until  they  will  be  taken  out  and  hanged.  Wouldn't 
it  be  a  glorious  day  for  Chicago?  Wouldn't  it  be 
a  glorious  triumph  for  the  State's  Attorney? 
Wouldn't  it  be  a  glorious  illustration  of  Christianity 
and  kindness  and  charity?  I  can  picture  them, 
wakened  in  the  gray  light  of  morning,  furnished  a 
suit  of  clothes  by  the  State,  led  to  the  scaffold,  their 
feet  tied,  black  caps  drawn  over  their  heads,  stood 
on  a  trapdoor,  the  hangman  pressing  a  spring,  so 
that  it  gives  way  under  them;  I  can  see  them  fall 
through  space  —  and  —  stopped  by  the  rope  around 
their  necks. 

This  would  surely  expiate  placing  Bobby  Franks 
in  the  culvert  after  he  was  dead.    This  would  doubt- 

141 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

less  bring  immense  satisfaction  to  some  people.  It 
would  bring  a  greater  satisfaction  because  it  would 
be  done  in  the  name  of  justice.  I  am  always  sus- 
picious of  "  righteous  indignation."  Nothing  is 
more  cruel  than  "  righteous  indignation."  To  hear 
young  men  talk  glibly  of  justice! 

If  there  were  such  a  thing  as  justice  it  could  only 
be  administered  by  those  who  knew  the  inmost 
thoughts  of  the  man  to  whom  they  were  meting  it 
out.  Aye,  who  knew  the  father  and  mother  and  the 
grandparents  and  the  infinite  number  of  people  back 
of  him;  who  knew  the  origin  of  every  cell  that  went 
into  the  body;  who  could  understand  the  structure, 
and  how  it  acted;  who  could  tell  how  the  emotions 
that  sway  the  human  being  affected  that  particular 
frail  piece  of  clay.  It  means  more  than  that.  It 
means  that  you  must  appraise  every  influence  that 
moves  them,  the  civilization  where  they  live,  and  all 
society  which  enters  into  the  making  of  the  child  or 
the  man!  If  your  Honor  can  do  it  —  if  you  can  do 
it  you  are  wise,  and  with  wisdom  goes  mercy. 

No  one  with  wisdom  and  with  understanding,  no 
one  who  is  honest  with  himself  and  with  his  own  life, 
whoever  he  may  be,  no  one  who  has  seen  himself  the 
prey  and  the  sport  and  the  plaything  of  the  infinite 
forces  that  move  man,  no  one  who  has  tried  and  who 
has  failed  —  and  we  have  all  tried  and  we  have  all 
failed  —  no  one  can  tell  what  justice  is  for  some  one 
else  or  for  himself  —  and  the  more  he  tries  and  the 
more  responsibility  he  takes  the  more  he  clings  to 

142 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

mercy  as  being  the  one  thing  which  he  is  sure  should 
control  his  judgment  of  men. 

For  life!  Where  is  the  human  heart  that  would 
not  be  satisfied  with  that?  Where  is  the  one  who 
understands  his  own  life  and  who  has  a  particle  of 
feeling  that  could  ask  for  more?  Any  cry  for  more 
roots  back  to  the  hyena;  it  roots  back  to  the  hissing 
serpent;  it  roots  back  to  the  beast  and  the  jungle. 
It  is  not  a  part  of  that  feeling  of  mercy  and  pity  and 
understanding  of  each  other  which  we  believe  has 
been  slowly  raising  man  from  his  low  estate.  It  is 
not  a  part  of  the  finer  instincts  which  are  slow  to 
develop;  of  the  wider  knowledge  which  is  slow  to 
come,  and  slow  to  move  us  when  it  comes.  It  is 
not  a  part  of  all  that  makes  the  best  there  is  in  man. 
It  is  not  a  part  of  all  that  promises  any  hope  for  the 
future  and  any  justice  for  the  present.  And  must 
I  ask  that  these  boys  get  mercy  by  spending  the  rest 
of  their  lives  in  prison,  year  following  year,  month 
following  month,  and  day  following  day,  with  noth- 
ing to  look  forward  to  but  hostile  guards  and  stone 
walls?  It  ought  not  to  be  hard  to  get  that  much 
mercy  in  any  court  in  the  year  1924. 

These  boys  left  this  body  down  in  the  culvert  and 
they  came  back. 

They  got  their  dinners.  They  parked  the  bloody 
automobile  in  front  of  Leopold's  house.  They 
cleaned  it  to  some  extent  that  night  and  left  it 
standing  in  the  street  in  front  of  their  home. 

"  Oriented,"  of  course.     "  Oriented."    They  left 

143 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

it  there  for  the  night,  so  that  anybody  might  see 
and  might  know.  They  took  it  into  the  garage  the 
next  day  and  washed  it,  and  then  poor  little  Dickie 
Loeb  —  I  shouldn't  call  him  Dickie,  and  I  shouldn't 
call  him  poor,  because  that  might  be  playing  for 
sympathy,  and  you  have  no  right  to  ask  for  sym- 
pathy in  this  world.  You  should  ask  for  justice, 
whatever  that  may  be;  and  only  State's  Attorneys 
know. 

And  then  in  a  day  or  so  we  find  Dick  Loeb  with 
his  pockets  stuffed  with  newspapers  telling  of  the 
Franks  tragedy.  We  find  him  consulting  with  his 
friends  in  the  club,  with  the  newspaper  reporters; 
and  my  experience  is  that  the  last  person  that  a 
conscious  criminal  associates  with  is  a  reporter.  He 
even  shuns  them  more  than  he  does  a  detective,  be- 
cause they  are  smarter  and  less  merciful.  But  he 
picks  up  a  reporter,  and  he  tells  him  he  has  read  a 
great  many  detective  stories,  and  he  knows  just  how 
this  would  happen  and  that  the  fellow  who  tele- 
phoned must  have  been  down  on  63rd  Street,  and 
the  way  to  find  him  is  to  go  down  on  63rd  Street  and 
visit  the  drug  stores,  and  he  would  go  with  him. 

And  Dick  Loeb  pilots  reporters  around  the  drug 
stores  where  the  telephoning  was  done,  and  he  talks 
about  it,  and  he  takes  the  newspapers  with  him,  and 
he  is  having  a  glorious  time. 

Talk  about  scheming.  Yes,  it  is  the  scheme  of 
disease;  it  is  the  scheme  of  infancy;  it  is  the  scheme 
of  fools;  it  is  the  scheme  of  irresponsibility  from  the 

144 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

time  it  was  conceived  until  the  last  act  in  the 
tragedy. 

Many  a  time  has  mercy  come  even  from  the 
State's  Attorney's  office.  And  yet,  forsooth,  for 
some  reason,  here  is  a  case  of  two  immature  boys  of 
diseased  mind,  as  plain  as  the  light  of  day,  and  they 
say  you  can  get  justice  only  by  shedding  their  last 
drop  of  blood! 

Why?  WTiy?  It  is  unheard  of,  unprecedented  in 
this  court,  unknown  among  civilized  men.  And  yet 
this  court  is  to  make  an  example  or  civilization  will 
fail.  I  suppose  civilization  will  survive  if  your 
Honor  hangs  them.  But  your  Honor  will  be  turning 
back  over  the  long,  long  road  we  have  traveled. 
Your  Honor  would  be  turning  back  to  the  days 
which  Brother  Marshall  seems  to  love,  when  they 
burned  people  thirteen  years  of  age.  You  would  be 
dealing  a  staggering  blow  to  all  that  has  been  done 
in  the  city  of  Chicago  in  the  last  twenty  years  for 
the  protection  of  infancy  and  childhood  and  youth. 

And  for  what?  Because  the  people  are  talking 
about  it.  It  would  not  mean,  your  Honor,  that  your 
reason  was  convinced.  It  would  mean  in  this  land 
of  ours,  where  talk  is  cheap,  where  newspapers  are 
plentiful,  where  the  most  immature  expresses  his 
opinion,  and  the  more  immature  the  stronger,  that  a 
court  couldn't  help  feeling  the  great  pressure  of  the 
public  opinion  which  they  say  exists  in  this  case. 

Coming  alone  in  this  court  room  with  obscure  de- 
fendants, doing  what  has  been  done  in  this  case, 

145 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

coming  with  the  outside  world  shut  off,  as  in  most 
cases,  and  saying  to  this  court  and  counsel,  "  I  be- 
lieve that  these  boys  ought  not  to  be  at  large,  I 
believe  they  are  immature  and  irresponsible,  and 
I  am  willing  to  enter  a  plea  of  guilty  and  let  you 
sentence  them  to  life  imprisonment,"  how  long  do 
you  suppose  your  Honor  would  hesitate?  Do  you 
suppose  the  State's  Attorneys  would  raise  their 
voices  in  protest? 

If  a  man  could  judge  a  fellow  in  coldness  without 
taking  account  of  his  own  life,  without  taking  ac- 
count of  what  he  knows  of  human  life,  without  some 
understanding,  how  long  would  we  be  a  race  of  real 
human  beings?  It  has  taken  the  world  a  long  time 
for  man  to  get  even  where  he  is  today.  If  the  law 
was  administered  without  any  feeling  of  sympathy 
or  humanity  or  kindliness,  we  would  begin  our  long, 
slow  journey  back  to  the  jungle  that  was  formerly 
our  home. 

Three  hundred  and  forty  murder  cases  in  ten 
years  with  pleas  of  guilty  in  this  county.  One 
hanging  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  and  that  a  man  forty 
years  of  age.  And  yet  they  say  we  come  here  with 
a  preposterous  plea  for  mercy.  When  did  any  plea 
for  mercy  become  preposterous  in  any  tribunal  in 
all  the  universe? 

This  tragedy  has  not  claimed  all  the  attention  it 
has  had,  your  Honor,  on  account  of  its  atrocity. 
What  is  it?  There  are  two  reasons,  and  only  two 
that  I  can  see.    First  is  the  reputed  extreme  wealth 

146 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

of  these  families;  not  only  the  Loeb  and  Leopold 
families,  but  the  Franks  family,  and  of  course  it  is 
unusual.  And  next  is  the  fact  it  is  weird  and  un- 
canny and  motiveless.  That  is  what  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  world.  Many  may  say  now  that 
they  want  to  hang  these  boys ;  but  I  know  that  giv- 
ing the  people  blood  is  something  like  giving  them 
their  dinner.  When  they  get  it  they  go  to  sleep. 
They  may  for  the  time  being  have  an  emotion,  but 
they  will  bitterly  regret  it.  And  I  undertake  to  say 
that  if  these  two  boys  are  sentenced  to  death,  and 
are  hanged,  on  that  day  there  will  be  a  pall  over  the 
people  of  this  land  that  will  be  dark  and  deep,  and 
at  least  cover  every  humane  and  intelligent  person 
with  its  gloom.  I  wonder  if  it  will  do  good.  I 
wonder  if  it  will  help  the  children  —  and  there  are 
many  like  these. 

What  about  this  matter  of  crime  and  punishment, 
anyhow?  I  may  know  less  than  the  rest,  but  I  have 
at  least  tried  to  find  out,  and  I  am  fairly  familiar 
with  the  best  literature  that  has  been  written 
on  that  subject  in  the  last  hundred  years.  The 
more  men  study,  the  more  they  doubt  the  effect  of 
severe  punishment  on  crime.  And  yet  Mr.  Savage 
tells  this  court  that  if  these  boys  are  hanged,  there 
will  be  no  more  murder.  Mr.  Savage  is  an  optimist. 
He  says  that  if  the  defendants  are  hanged  there  will 
be  no  more  boys  like  these. 

I  could  give  him  a  sketch  of  punishment,  punish- 
ment beginning  with  the  brute  which  killed  some- 

147 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

thing  because  something  hurt  it ;  the  punishment  of 
the  savage;  if  a  person  is  injured  in  the  tribe,  they 
must  injure  somebody  in  the  other  tribe;  if  one  is 
killed  his  friends  or  family  must  kill  in  return. 

You  can  trace  it  all  down  through  the  history  of 
man.  You  can  trace  the  burnings,  the  boilings,  the 
drawings  and  quarterings,  the  hanging  of  people  in 
England  at  the  crossroads,  carving  them  up  and 
hanging  them  as  examples  for  all  to  see. 

We  can  come  down  to  the  last  century  when 
nearly  two  hundred  crimes  were  punishable  by 
death,  and  by  death  in  every  form;  not  only  hanging 
—  that  was  too  humane  —  but  burning,  boiling,  cut- 
ting into  pieces,  torturing  in  all  conceivable  forms. 

You  can  read  the  stories  of  the  hangings  on  a 
high  hill,  and  the  populace  for  miles  around  coming 
out  to  the  scene,  that  everybody  might  be  awed 
into  goodness.  Hanging  for  picking  pockets  —  and 
more  pockets  were  picked  in  the  crowd  that  went  to 
the  hanging  than  had  been  known  before.  Hangings 
for  murder  —  and  men  were  murdered  on  the  way 
there  and  on  the  way  home.  Hangings  for  poach- 
ing, hangings  for  everything,  and  hangings  in  public, 
not  shut  up  cruelly  and  brutally  in  a  jail,  out  of 
the  light  of  day,  wakened  in  the  nighttime  and  led 
forth  and  killed,  but  taken  to  the  shire  town  on  a 
high  hill,  in  the  presence  of  a  multitude,  so  that  all 
might  see  that  the  wages  of  sin  were  death. 

What  happened?  I  have  read  the  life  of  Lord 
Shaftesbury,  a  great  nobleman  of  England,  who 

148 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

gave  his  life  and  his  labors  toward  modifying  the 
penal  code.  I  have  read  of  the  slow,  painful  efforts 
through  all  the  ages  for  more  humanity  of  man  to 
his  fellow  man.  I  know  what  history  says,  I  know 
what  it  means,  and  I  know  what  flows  from  it,  so 
far  as  we  can  tell,  which  is  not  with  certainty. 

I  know  that  every  step  in  the  progress  of  human- 
ity has  been  met  and  opposed  by  prosecutors,  and 
many  times  by  courts.  I  know  that  when  petty 
larceny  was  punishable  by  death  in  England,  juries 
refused  to  convict.  They  were  too  humane  to  obey 
the  law;  and  judges  refused  to  sentence.  I  know 
that  when  the  delusion  of  witchcraft  was  spreading 
over  Europe  many  a  judge  so  shaped  his  cases  that 
no  crime  of  witchcraft  could  be  punished  in  his 
court.  I  know  that  these  trials  were  stopped  in 
America  because  juries  would  no  longer  convict.  I 
know  that  every  step  in  the  progress  of  the  world 
in  reference  to  crime  has  come  from  that  deep  well 
of  sympathy,  that  in  spite  of  all  our  training  and  all 
our  conventions  and  all  our  teaching,  still  lives  in 
the  human  breast. 

Gradually  the  laws  have  been  changed  and  modi- 
fied, and  men  look  back  with  horror  at  the  hang- 
ings and  the  killings  of  the  past.  What  did  they 
find  in  England?  That  as  they  got  rid  of  these 
barbarous  statutes  crimes  decreased  instead  of  in- 
creased; as  the  criminal  law  was  modified  and  hu- 
manized, there  was  less  crime  instead  of  more.  I 
will  undertake  to  say,  your  Honor,  that  you  can 

149 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

scarcely  find  a  single  book  written  by  a  student  — 
and  I  will  include  all  the  works  on  criminology  of 
the  past  —  that  has  not  made  the  statement  over 
and  over  again  that  as  the  penal  code  was  made  less 
terrible,  crimes  grew  less  frequent. 

If  these  two  boys  die  on  the  scaffold,  which  I  can 
never  bring  myself  to  imagine,  if  they  do  die  on  the 
scaffold,  the  details  of  this  will  be  spread  over  the 
world.  Every  newspaper  in  the  United  States  will 
carry  a  full  account.  Every  newspaper  of  Chicago 
will  be  filled  with  the  gruesome  details.  It  will 
enter  every  home  and  every  family. 

Will  it  make  men  better  or  make  men  worse? 
How  many  will  be  colder  and  cruder  for  it?  How 
many  will  enjoy  the  details?  And  you  cannot  enjoy 
human  suffering  without  being  affected  for  the 
worse. 

What  influence  will  it  have  upon  the  millions  of 
men  who  will  read  it?  What  influence  will  it  have 
upon  the  millions  of  women  who  will  read  it,  more 
sensitive,  more  impressionable,  more  imaginative 
than  men?  What  influence  will  it  have  upon  the 
infinite  number  of  children  who  will  devour  its  de- 
tails as  Dickie  Loeb  has  enjoyed  reading  detective 
stories?  What  influence,  let  me  ask  you,  will  it 
have  for  the  unborn  babes  still  sleeping  in  their 
mother's  womb?  And  what  influence  will  it  have  on 
the  psychology  of  the  fathers  and  mothers  yet  to 
come?  Do  I  need  to  argue  to  your  Honor  that 
cruelty  only  breeds  cruelty;  that  hatred  only  causes 

150 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

hatred;  that  if  there  is  any  way  to  soften  this  human 
heart,  which  is  hard  enough  at  its  best,  if  there  is 
any  way  to  kill  evil  and  hatred  and  all  that  goes 
with  it,  it  is  not  through  evil  and  hatred  and  cruelty? 
It  is  through  charity  and  love  and  understanding. 

How  often  do  people  need  to  be  told  this?  Look 
back  at  the  world.  There  is  not  a  philosopher,  not 
a  religious  leader,  not  a  creed  that  has  not  taught  it. 
This  is  a  Christian  community;  at  least  it  boasts  of 
it.  Let  me  ask  this  court,  is  there  any  doubt  about 
whether  these  boys  would  be  safe  in  the  hands  of  the 
founder  of  the  Christian  religion?  It  would  be 
blasphemy  to  say  they  would  not.  Nobody  could 
imagine,  nobody  could  even  think  of  it. 

Your  Honor,  I  feel  like  apologizing  for  urging  it 
so  long.  It  is  not  because  I  doubt  this  court.  It  is 
not  because  I  do  not  know  something  of  the  human 
emotions  and  the  human  heart.  It  is  not  that  I  do 
not  know  that  every  result  of  logic,  every  page  of 
history,  every  line  of  philosophy  and  religion,  and 
every  precedent  in  this  court,  urge  this  court  to  save 
life.  It  is  not  that.  I  have  become  obsessed  with 
this  deep  feeling  of  hate  and  anger  that  has  swept 
across  this  city  and  this  land.  I  have  been  fighting 
it,  battling  with  it,  until  it  has  fairly  driven  me  mad, 
until  I  sometimes  wonder  whether  every  righteous 
human  emotion  has  not  gone  down  in  the  raging 
storm. 

I  am  not  pleading  so  much  for  these  boys  as  I 
am  for  the  infinite  number  of  others  to  follow,  those 

151 


Th&  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

who  perhaps  cannot  be  as  well  defended  as  these 
have  been,  those  who  may  go  down  in  the  tempest, 
without  aid.  It  is  of  them  I  am  thinking,  and  for 
them  I  am  begging  of  this  court  not  to  turn  back- 
ward toward  the  barbarous  and  cruel  past. 

Now,  your  Honor,  who  are  these  two  boys?  Leo- 
pold, with  a  wonderfully  brilliant  mind;  Loeb,  with 
an  unusual  intelligence;  both  from  their  very  youth 
crowded  like  hothouse  plants,  to  learn  more  and 
more  and  more.  Dr.  Krohn  says  that  they  are 
intelligent.  In  spite  of  that,  it  is  true:  they  are  un- 
usually intelligent.  But  it  takes  something  besides 
brains  to  make  a  human  being  who  can  adjust 
himself  to  life. 

In  fact,  as  Dr.  Church  and  Dr.  Singer  regretfully 
admitted,  brains  are  not  the  chief  essential  in  human 
conduct.  There  is  no  question  about  it.  The  emo- 
tions are  the  urge  that  makes  us  live;  the  urge  that 
makes  us  work  or  play,  or  move  along  the  pathways 
of  life.  They  are  the  instinctive  things.  In  fact, 
intellect  is  a  late  development  of  life.  Long  before 
it  was  evolved,  the  emotional  life  kept  the  organism 
in  existence  until  death.  Whatever  our  action  is,  it 
comes  from  the  emotions,  and  nobody  is  balanced 
without  them. 

Four  or  five  years  ago  the  world  was  startled  by  a 
story  about  a  boy  of  eleven,  the  youngest  boy  ever 
turned  out  at  Harvard,  who  had  studied  everything 
on  earth  and  understood  it.  All  questions  of  science 
and  philosophy  he   could  discuss  with  the  most 

152 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

learned.  How  he  got  it  nobody  knows.  It  was  pro- 
phesied that  he  would  have  a  brilliant  future.  In 
a  short  time  the  fire  had  burned  out.  He  was  a 
prodigy,  with  nothing  but  this  marvelous  brain 
power,  which  nobody  understood  or  could  under- 
stand. He  was  an  intellectual  freak.  He  never  was 
a  boy;  he  never  will  be  a  normal  man. 

We  have  all  read  of  Blind  Tom,  who  was  an  idiot, 
and  yet  a  marvelous  musician.  He  never  could  un- 
derstand music,  and  he  never  did  understand  it;  he 
never  knew  anything  about  it;  and  yet  he  could  go 
to  the  piano  and  play  so  well  that  people  marveled 
and  wondered.    How  it  comes  nobody  can  explain. 

The  question  of  intellect  means  the  smallest  part 
of  life.  Back  of  this  are  man's  nerves,  muscles, 
heart,  blood,  lungs  —  in  fact,  the  whole  organism; 
the  brain  is  the  least  part  in  human  development. 
Without  the  emotion-life  man  is  nothing.  All  teach- 
ing and  all  training  appeal,  not  only  to  the  intel- 
lectual, but  to  emotional  life. 

A  child  is  born  with  plastic  brain,  ready  for  such 
impressions  as  come  to  it.  Gradually  his  parents 
and  his  teachers  tell  him  things,  teach  him  habits, 
show  him  that  he  may  do  this  and  he  may  not  do 
that,  teach  him  the  difference  between  his  and  mine. 
No  child  knows  this  when  he  is  born.  He  knows 
nothing  about  property  or  property  rights.  They 
are  given  to  him  as  he  goes  along.  He  is  like  the 
animal  that  wants  something  and  goes  out  and  gets 
it,  kills  it,  operating  purely  from  instinct,  without 

153 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

training.  The  child  is  gradually  taught,  and  habits 
are  built  up.  These  habits  are  supposed  to  be 
strong  enough  so  that  they  will  form  inhibitions 
against  conduct  when  the  emotions  come  in  conflict 
with  the  duties  of  life. 

Dr.  Singer  and  Dr.  Church  admitted  exactly  what 
I  am  saying  now.  The  child  of  himself  knows  noth- 
ing about  right  and  wrong,  and  the  teachings  built 
up  give  him  habits,  so  he  will  be  able  to  control  cer- 
tain instincts  that  surge  upon  him,  and  which  surge 
upon  everyone  who  lives.  If  the  instinct  is  strong 
enough  and  the  habit  weak  enough,  the  habit  goes 
down  before  it.  His  conduct  depends  upon  the  rel- 
ative strength  of  the  instinct  and  the  habit  that  has 
been  built  up. 

Education  means  fixing  these  habits  so  deeply  in 
the  life  of  man  that  they  stand  him  in  stead  when  he 
needs  them  to  keep  him  in  the  path  —  and  that  is 
all  it  does  mean.  Suppose  one  sees  a  thousand-dollar 
bill  and  nobody  present.  He  may  have  the  impulse 
to  take  it.  If  he  does  not  take  it,  it  will  be  because 
his  emotional  nature  revolts  at  it,  through  habit  and 
through  training.  If  the  emotional  nature  does  not 
revolt  at  it  he  will  do  it.  That  is  why  people  do 
not  commit  what  we  call  crime;  that,  and  caution. 
All  education  means  is  the  building  of  habits  so  that 
certain  conduct  revolts  you  and  stops  you,  saves 
you;  but  without  an  emotional  nature  you  cannot 
do  that.    Some  are  born  practically  without  it. 

On  Sunday,  June  ist,  before  any  of  the  friends 

154 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

of  these  boys  or  their  counsel  could  see  them,  while 
they  were  in  the  care  of  the  State's  Attorney's  office, 
they  brought  them  in  to  be  examined  by  their 
alienists.  Dr.  Patrick  said  that  they  had  no  emo- 
tional reactions.  Dr.  Church  said  the  same.  These 
are  their  alienists,  not  ours.  These  boys  could  tell 
this  gruesome  story  without  a  change  of  counte- 
nance, without  the  slightest  feelings.  What  was  the 
reason?  I  do  not  know.  I  know  what  causes  the 
emotional  life.  I  know  it  comes  from  the  nerves, 
the  muscles,  the  endocrine  glands,  the  vegetative 
system.  I  know  it  is  the  most  important  part  of  life. 
Is  Dickie  Loeb  to  blame  because  out  of  the  in- 
finite forces  that  conspired  to  form  him,  the  forces 
that  were  at  work  producing  him  ages  before  he  was 
born,  because  out  of  these  infinite  combinations  he 
was  born  without  it?  If  he  is,  then  there  should  be 
a  new  definition  for  justice.  Is  he  to  blame  for 
what  he  did  not  have  and  never  had?  Is  he  to  blame 
that  his  machine  is  imperfect?  Who  is  to  blame? 
I  do  not  know.  I  have  never  in  my  life  been  inter- 
ested so  much  in  fixing  blame  as  I  have  in  relieving 
people  from  blame.  I  am  not  wise  enough  to  fix  it. 
I  know  that  somewhere  in  the  past  that  entered  into 
him  something  missed.  It  may  be  defective  nerves. 
It  may  be  a  defective  heart  or  liver.  It  may  be  de- 
fective endocrine  glands.  I  know  it  is  something. 
I  know  that  nothing  happens  in  this  world  without 
a  cause.  I  know,  your  Honor,  that  if  you,  sitting 
here  in  this  court,  and  in  this  case,  had  infinite 

155 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

knowledge  you  could  lay  your  fingers  on  it,  and  I 
know  you  would  not  visit  it  on  Dickie  Loeb.  I 
asked  Dr.  Church  and  I  asked  Dr.  Singer  whether, 
if  they  were  wise  enough  to  know,  they  could  not 
find  the  cause,  and  both  of  them  said  yes. 

There  are  at  least  two  theories  of  man's  respon- 
sibility. There  may  be  more.  There  is  the  old 
theory  that  if  a  man  does  something  it  is  because 
he  willfully,  purposely,  maliciously  and  with  a  malig- 
nant heart  sees  fit  to  do  it.  And  that  goes  back  to 
the  possession  of  man  by  devils.  The  old  indict- 
ments used  to  read  that  a  man  being  possessed  of 
a  devil  did  so  and  so.  But  why  was  he  possessed 
with  the  devil?  Did  he  invite  him  in?  Could  he 
help  it?  Very  few  half-civilized  people  believe  that 
doctrine  any  more.  Science  has  been  at  work,  hu- 
manity has  been  at  work,  scholarship  has  been  at 
work,  and  intelligent  people  now  know  that  every 
human  being  is  the  product  of  the  endless  heredity 
back  of  him  and  the  infinite  environment  around 
him.  He  is  made  as  he  is  and  he  is  the  sport  of  all 
that  goes  before  him  and  is  applied  to  him,  and 
under  the  same  stress  and  storm  you  would  act  one 
way,  I  another,  and  poor  Dickie  Loeb  another. 

Take  a  normal  boy,  your  Honor.  Do  you  suppose 
he  could  have  taken  a  boy  into  an  automobile  with- 
out any  reason  and  hit  him  over  the  head  and  killed 
him?  I  might  just  as  well  ask  you  whether  you 
thought  the  sun  could  shine  at  midnight  in  this 
latitude.    It  is  not  a  part  of  normality.    Something 

156 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

was  wrong.  I  am  asking  your  Honor  not  to  visit  the 
grave  and  dire  and  terrible  misfortunes  of  Dickie 
Loeb  and  Nathan  Leopold  upon  these  two  boys.  I 
do  not  know  where  to  place  it.  I  know  it  is  some- 
where in  the  infinite  economy  of  nature,  and  if  I  were 
wise  enough  I  could  find  it.  I  know  it  is  there,  and 
to  say  that  because  they  are  as  they  are  you  should 
hang  them,  is  brutaHty  and  cruelty,  and  savors  of 
the  fang  and  claw. 

Every  one  of  the  alienists  on  both  sides  has  told 
this  court,  what  no  doubt  this  court  already  knew, 
that  the  emotions  furnish  the  urge  and  the  drive  to 
life.  A  man  can  get  along  without  his  intellect,  and 
most  people  do,  but  he  cannot  get  along  without  his 
emotions.  He  eats  and  he  drinks,  he  works  and 
plays  and  sleeps,  in  obedience  to  his  emotional  sys- 
tem. The  intellectual  part  of  man  acts  only  as  a 
judge  over  his  emotions,  and  then  he  generally  gets 
it  wrong,  and  has  to  rely  on  his  instincts  to  save 
him. 

These  boys  —  I  do  not  care  what  their  mentality 
—  that  simply  makes  it  worse  —  are  emotionally  de- 
fective. Every  single  alienist  who  has  testified  in 
this  case  has  said  so.  The  only  person  who  did  not 
was  Dr.  Krohn.  While  I  am  on  that  subject,  lest 
I  forget  the  eminent  doctor,  I  want  to  refer  to  one 
or  two  things.  In  the  first  place,  all  these  alienists 
that  the  State  called  came  into  the  State's  Attor- 
ney's office  and  heard  these  boys  tell  their  story  of 
this  crime,  and  that  is  all  they  heard. 

157 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now,  your  Honor  is  familiar  with  Chicago  the 
same  as  I  am,  and  I  am  willing  to  admit  right  here 
and  now  that  the  two  ablest  alienists  in  Chicago  are 
Dr.  Church  and  Dr.  Patrick.  There  may  be  abler 
ones,  but  we  lawyers  do  not  know  them. 

And  I  will  go  further:  if  my  friend  Crowe  had  not 
got  to  them  first,  I  would  have  tried  to  get  them. 
We  could  not  get  them,  and  Mr.  Crowe  was  very 
wise,  and  he  deserves  a  great  deal  of  credit  for  the 
industry,  the  research  and  the  thoroughness  that  he 
and  his  staff  have  used  in  detecting  this  terrible 
crime.  He  worked  with  intelligence  and  rapidity. 
If  here  and  there  he  trampled  on  the  edges  of  the 
Constitution  I  am  not  going  to  talk  about  it  here. 
If  he  did  it,  he  is  not  the  first  one  in  that  office  and 
probably  will  not  be  the  last  who  will  do  it;  so  let 
that  go.  A  great  many  people  in  this  world  believe 
the  end  justifies  the  means.  I  don't  know  but  that 
I  do  myself.  And  that  is  the  reason  I  never  want 
to  take  the  side  of  the  prosecution,  because  I  might 
harm  an  individual.  I  am  sure  the  State  will  live 
anyhow. 

On  that  Sunday  afternoon,  before  we  had  a 
chance,  he  got  in  two  alienists.  Church  and  Patrick, 
and  also  called  Dr.  Krohn,  and  they  sat  around 
hearing  these  boys  tell  their  stories,  and  that  is  all. 
Your  Honor,  they  were  not  holding  an  examination. 
It  has  not  the  slightest  earmarks  of  an  examination 
for  sanity.  It  was  just  an  inquest;  a  little  prema- 
ture, but  still  an  inquest. 

iS8 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

What  is  the  truth  about  it?  What  did  Patrick 
say?  He  said  that  it  was  not  a  good  opportunity 
for  examination.  What  did  Church  say?  I  read 
from  his  own  book  what  was  necessary  for  an  ex- 
amination, and  he  said  that  it  was  not  a  good  oppor- 
tunity for  an  examination.  What  did  Krohn  say? 
"  Fine  —  a  fine  opportunity  for  an  examination," 
the  best  he  had  ever  heard  of,  or  that  ever  anybody 
had,  because  their  souls  were  stripped  naked. 
Krohn  is  not  an  alienist.    He  is  an  orator. 

Patrick  and  Church  said  that  the  conditions  were 
unfavorable  for  an  examination,  that  they  never 
would  choose  it,  that  their  opportunities  were  poor. 
And  yet  Krohn  states  the  contrary  —  Krohn,  who 
for  sixteen  years  has  not  been  a  physician,  but  has 
used  a  license  for  the  sake  of  haunting  these  courts, 
civil  and  criminal,  and  going  up  and  down  the  land 
peddling  perjury. 

What  else  did  he  say,  in  which  the  State's  alienists 
dispute  him?  Both  of  them  say  that  these  boys 
showed  no  adequate  emotion.  Krohn  said  they  did. 
One  boy  fainted.  They  had  been  in  the  hands  of 
the  State's  Attorney  for  sixty  hours.  They  had  been 
in  the  hands  of  policemen,  lawyers,  detectives, 
stenographers,  inquisitors  and  newspaper  men  for 
sixty  hours,  and  one  of  them  fainted.  Well,  the  only 
person  who  is  entirely  without  emotion  is  a  dead 
man.  You  cannot  live  without  breathing  and  some 
emotional  responses.  Krohn  says:  "  Why,  Loeb  had 
emotion;  he  was  pohte;  begged  our  pardon;  got  up 

159 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

from  his  chair."  Even  Dr.  Krohn  knows  better  than 
that.  I  fancy  if  your  Honor  goes  into  an  elevator 
where  there  is  a  lady  he  takes  off  his  hat.  Is  that 
out  of  emotion  for  the  lady  or  is  it  habit?  You  say, 
"  Please,"  and  "  Thank  you,"  because  of  habit. 
Emotions  haven't  the  slightest  thing  to  do  with  it. 

Krohn  told  the  story  of  this  interview  and  he  told 
almost  twice  as  much  as  the  other  two  men  who  sat 
there  and  heard  it.  And  how  he  told  it!  When  he 
testified  my  mind  carried  me  back  to  the  time  when 
I  was  a  "  kid,"  which  was  some  years  ago,  and  we 
used  to  eat  watermelons.  I  have  seen  little  boys 
take  a  rind  of  watermelon  and  cover  their  whole 
faces  with  water,  eat  it,  devour  it,  and  have  the  time 
of  their  lives,  up  to  their  ears  in  watermelon.  And 
when  I  heard  Dr.  Krohn  testify  in  this  case,  to  take 
the  blood  of  these  two  boys,  I  could  see  his  mouth 
water  with  the  joy  it  gave  him,  and  he  showed  all 
the  delight  and  pleasure  of  myself  and  my  young 
companions  when  we  ate  watermelon. 

I  can  imagine  a  psychiatrist,  a  real  one  who  knows 
the  mechanism  of  man,  who  knows  life  and  its 
machinery,  who  knows  the  misfortunes  of  youth, 
who  knows  the  stress  and  the  strain  of  adolescence 
which  comes  to  every  boy  and  overpowers  so  many, 
who  knows  the  weird  fantastic  world  that  hedges 
around  the  life  of  a  child  —  I  can  imagine  a  psy- 
chiatrist who  might  honestly  think  that  under  the 
crude  definitions  of  the  law  the  defendants  are  sane 
and  know  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong. 

1 60 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

But  if  he  were  a  real  physician,  whose  mission  is  the 
highest  that  man  can  follow,  to  save  life  and  min- 
ister to  human  suffering  —  to  save  life  regardless 
of  what  the  life  is  —  to  prevent  suffering  regardless 
of  whose  suffering  it  is  —  and  no  mission  could  be 
higher  than  that  —  and  if  he  were  called  on  for  an 
opinion  that  might  send  his  fellow  man  to  doom,  I 
can  imagine  him  doing  it  reluctantly,  carefully,  mod- 
estly, timorously,  fearfully,  and  being  careful  that 
he  did  not  turn  one  hair  to  the  right  or  left  more 
than  he  should,  and  giving  the  advantage  in  favor 
of  life  and  humanity  and  mercy,  but  I  can  never 
imagine  a  real  physician  who  cared  for  life  or  who 
thought  of  anything  excepting  cash,  gloating  over 
his  testimony,  as  Dr.  Krohn  did  in  this  case. 

The  mind,  your  Honor,  is  an  illusive  thing. 
Whether  it  exists  or  not  no  one  can  tell.  It  cannot 
be  found  as  you  find  the  brain.  Its  relation  to  the 
brain  and  the  nervous  system  is  uncertain.  It  sim- 
ply means  the  activity  of  the  body,  which  is  co-or- 
dinated with  the  brain.  But  when  we  do  find  from 
human  conduct  that  we  believe  there  is  a  diseased 
mind,  we  naturally  speculate  on  how  it  came  about. 
And  we  wish  to  find  always,  if  possible,  the  reason 
why  it  is  so.  We  may  find  it;  we  may  not  find  it; 
because  the  unknown  is  infinitely  wider  and  larger 
than  the  known,  both  as  to  the  human  mind  and  as 
to  almost  everything  else  in  the  universe. 

I  have  tried  to  study  the  lives  of  these  two  most 
unfortunate    boys.      Three    months    ago,    if    their 

i6i 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

friends  and  the  friends  of  the  family  had  been  asked 
to  pick  out  the  most  promising  lads  of  their  ac- 
quaintance, they  probably  would  have  picked  these 
two  boys.  With  every  opportunity,  with  plenty  of 
wealth,  they  would  have  said  that  those  two  would 
succeed.  In  a  day,  by  an  act  of  madness,  all  this 
is  destroyed,  until  the  best  they  can  hope  for  now  is 
a  life  of  silence  and  pain,  continuing  to  the  end  of 
their  years.    How  did  it  happen? 

Let  us  take  Dickie  Loeb  first.  I  do  not  claim  to 
know  how  it  happened;  I  have  sought  to  find  out. 
I  know  that  something,  or  some  combination  of 
things,  is  responsible  for  his  mad  act.  I  know  that 
there  are  no  accidents  in  nature.  I  know  that  effect 
follows  cause. 

Can  I  find  what  was  wrong?  I  think  I  can.  Here 
was  a  boy  at  a  tender  age,  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
governess,  intellectual,  vigorous,  devoted,  with  a 
strong  ambition  for  the  welfare  of  this  boy.  He 
was  pushed  in  his  studies,  as  plants  are  forced  in 
hothouses.  He  had  no  pleasures,  such  as  a  boy 
should  have,  except  as  they  were  gained  by  lying 
and  cheating.  Now,  I  am  not  criticising  the  nurse. 
I  suggest  that  some  day  your  Honor  look  at  her 
picture.  It  explains  her  fully.  Forceful,  brooking 
no  interference,  she  loved  the  boy,  and  her  ambi- 
tion was  that  he  should  reach  the  highest  perfection. 
No  time  to  pause,  no  time  to  stop  from  one  book  to 
another,  no  time  to  have  those  pleasures  which  a 
boy  ought  to  have  to  create  a  normal  life. 

162 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

And  what  happened?     Your  Honor,  what  would 
happen?     Nothing  strange  or  unusual.    This  nurse 
was  with  him  all  the  time,  except  when  he  stole  out 
at  night,  from  two  to  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  it 
is  instructive  to  read  her  letter  to  show  her  attitude. 
It  speaks  volumes ;  tells  exactly  the  relation  between 
these  two  people.     He  scheming  and  planning  as 
healthy  boys  would  do,  to  get  out  from  under  her 
restraint.     She  putting  before  him  the  best  books, 
which  children  generally  do  not  want;  and  he,  when 
she  was  not  looking,  reading  detective  stories,  which 
he  devoured,  story  after  story,  in  his  young  life. 
Of  all  of  this  there  can  be  no  question.    What  is  the 
result?    Every  story  he  read  was  a  story  of  crime. 
We  have  a  statute  in  this  State,  passed  only  last 
year,  if  I  recall  it,  which  forbids  minors  reading 
stories  of  crime.    The  legislature  in  its  wisdom  felt 
that  it  would  produce  criminal  tendencies  in  the 
boys  who  read  them.    The  legislature  of  this  State 
has  given  its  opinion,  and  forbidden  boys  to  read 
these  books.     He  read  them  day  after  day.     He 
never  stopped.    While  he  was  passing  through  col- 
lege at  Ann  Arbor  he  was  still  reading  them.    When 
he  was  a  senior  he  read  them,  and  almost  nothing 
else. 

Now,  these  facts  are  beyond  dispute.  He  early 
developed  the  tendency  to  mix  with  crime,  to  be  a 
detective;  as  a  little  boy  shadowing  people  on  the 
street;  as  a  little  child  going  out  with  his  phantasy 
of  being  the  head  of  a  band  of  criminals.    How  did 

163 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

this  grow  and  develop  in  him?  Let  us  see.  It  seems 
to  me  as  natural  as  the  day  following  the  night. 
Every  detective  story  is  a  story  of  a  sleuth  getting 
the  best  of  it;  trailing  some  unfortunate  individual 
through  devious  ways  until  his  victim  is  finally 
landed  in  jail  or  stands  on  the  gallows.  They  all 
show  how  smart  the  detective  is,  and  where  the 
criminal  himself  falls  down. 

This  boy  early  in  his  life  conceived  the  idea  that 
there  could  be  a  crime  that  nobody  could  ever 
detect;  that  there  could  be  one  where  the  detective 
did  not  land  his  game.  He  had  been  interested  in 
the  story  of  Charley  Ross,  who  was  kidnaped. 

I  might  digress  here  just  a  moment,  because  my 
friend  Savage  spoke  about  two  crimes  that  were 
committed  here  —  kidnaping  and  murder.  That  is, 
the  court  should  hang  them  twice  —  once  for  each. 
There  are  more  than  two  committed  here.  There 
are  more  than  two  crimes  committed  in  almost  every 
capital  act. 

In  almost  any  important  crime  the  State's  Attor- 
ney can  write  indictments  as  long  as  the  paper  lasts. 

He  wanted  to  commit  a  perfect  crime.  There 
had  been  growing  in  his  brain,  dwarfed  and  twisted 
—  as  every  act  in  this  case  shows  it  to  have  been 
dwarfed  and  twisted  —  there  had  been  growing  this 
scheme,  not  due  to  any  wickedness  of  Dickie  Loeb, 
for  he  is  a  child.  It  grew  as  he  grew;  it  grew  from 
those  around  him;  it  grew  from  the  lack  of  the  proper 
training  until  it  possessed  him.     He  believed  he 

164 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

could  plan  the  perfect  crime.  He  had  thought  of  it 
and  talked  of  it  for  years,  and  then  came  this  sorry 
act  of  his,  utterly  irrational  and  motiveless,  a  plan 
to  commit  a  perfect  crime  which  must  contain  kid- 
naping, and  there  must  be  ransom,  or  else  it  could 
not  be  perfect,  and  they  must  get  the  money. 

The  State  itself  in  opening  this  case  said  that  it 
was  largely  for  experience  and  for  a  thrill,  which  it 
was.  In  the  end  the  State  switched  it  on  to  the 
foolish  reason  of  getting  cash.  Every  fact  in  this 
case  shows  that  cash  had  almost  nothing  to  do  with 
it,  except  as  a  factor  in  the  perfect  crime. 

This  phantasy  grew  in  the  mind  of  Dickie  Loeb 
almost  before  he  began  to  read.  It  developed  as  a 
child  just  as  kleptomania  has  developed  in  many  a 
person  and  is  clearly  recognized  by  the  courts.  He 
went  from  one  thing  to  another  —  in  the  main  insig- 
nificant, childish  things.  And,  finally,  the  planning 
for  this  crime.  Murder  was  the  least  part  of  it;  to 
kidnap  and  get  the  money,  and  kill  in  connection 
with  it;  that  was  the  childish  scheme  growing  up  in 
these  childish  minds.  And  they  had  it  in  mind  for 
five  or  six  months  —  planning  what?  Planning 
where  every  step  was  foolish  and  childish;  acts  that 
could  have  been  planned  in  an  hour  or  a  day;  plan- 
ning this,  and  then  planning  that,  changing  this  and 
changing  that;  the  weird  actions  of  two  mad  brains. 

Counsel  have  laughed  at  us  for  talking  about 
phantasies  and  hallucinations.  They  have  laughed 
at  us  in  one  breath,  but  admitted  it  in  another.    Let 

165 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

us  look  at  that  for  a  moment,  your  Honor.  Your 
Honor  has  been  a  child.  I  well  remember  that  I 
have  been  a  child.  And  while  youth  has  its  ad- 
vantages, it  has  its  grievous  troubles.  There  is  an 
old  prayer,  "  Though  I  grow  old  in  years,  let  me 
keep  the  heart  of  a  child."  The  heart  of  a  child  with 
its  abundant  life,  its  disregard  for  consequences,  its 
living  in  the  moment,  and  for  the  moment  alone; 
its  lack  of  responsibility,  and  its  freedom  from 
care. 

The  law  knows  and  has  recognized  childhood  for 
many  and  many  a  long  year.  The  brain  of  the  child 
is  the  home  of  dreams,  of  castles,  of  visions,  of  illu- 
sions and  of  delusions.  In  fact,  there  could  be  no 
childhood  without  delusions,  for  delusions  are 
always  more  alluring  than  facts.  Delusions,  dreams 
and  hallucinations  are  a  part  of  the  warp  and  woof 
of  childhood.  You  know  it  and  I  know  it.  I  re- 
member, when  I  was  a  child,  the  men  seemed  as 
tall  as  the  trees,  the  trees  as  tall  as  the  mountains. 
I  can  remember  very  well  when,  as  a  little  boy,  I 
swam  the  deepest  spot  in  the  river  for  the  first  time. 
I  swam  breathlessly,  and  landed  with  as  much  sense 
of  glory  and  triumph  as  Julius  Csesar  felt  when  he 
led  his  army  across  the  Rubicon.  I  have  been  back 
since,  and  I  can  almost  step  across  the  same  place, 
but  it  seemed  an  ocean  then.  And  those  men  who 
I  thought  were  so  wonderful  were  dead  and  left 
nothing  behind.  I  had  lived  in  a  dream.  I  had 
never  known  the  real  world  which  I  met,  to  my  dis- 

i66 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

comfort  and  despair,  and  that  dispelled  the  illusions 
of  my  youth. 

The  whole  life  of  childhood  is  a  dream  and  an 
illusion,  and  whether  they  take  one  shape  or  another 
shape  depends  not  upon  the  dreamy  boy  but  on  what 
surrounds  him.  As  well  might  I  have  dreamed  of 
burglars  and  wished  to  be  one  as  to  dream  of  police- 
men and  wished  to  be  one.  Perhaps  I  was  lucky, 
too,  that  I  had  no  money.  We  have  grown  to  think 
that  the  misfortune  is  in  not  having  it.  The  great 
misfortune  in  this  case  is  the  money.  That  has  de- 
stroyed these  lives.  That  has  fostered  these  illu- 
sions. That  has  promoted  this  mad  act.  And  if 
your  Honor  shall  doom  them  to  die,  it  will  be  be- 
cause they  are  the  sons  of  the  rich. 

Do  you  suppose  that  if  they  lived  up  here  on  the 
Northwest  Side  and  had  no  money,  with  the  evi- 
dence as  clear  in  this  case  as  it  is,  any  human  being 
would  want  to  hang  them?  Excessive  wealth  is  a 
grievous  misfortune  in  every  step  in  life.  When  I 
read  malicious  newspapers  talking  of  excessive  fees 
in  this  case,  it  makes  me  ill.  That  there  is  nothing 
bigger  in  life,  that  it  is  presumed  that  no  man  lives 
to  whom  money  is  not  the  first  concern,  that  human 
instincts,  sympathy  and  kindness  and  charity  and 
logic  can  only  be  used  for  gold.  It  shows  how 
deeply  money  has  corrupted  the  hearts  of  most  men. 

Now,  to  get  back  to  Dickie  Loeb.  He  was  a  child. 
The  books  he  read  by  day  were  not  the  books  he 
read  by  night.    We  are  all  of  us  moulded  somewhat 

167 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

by  the  influences  around  us  and,  on  people  who  read, 
perhaps  books  are  the  greatest  and  the  strongest  of 
these  influences.  We  all  know  where  our  lives  have 
been  influenced  by  books.  The  nurse,  strict  and 
jealous  and  watchful,  gave  him  one  kind  of  books; 
by  night  he  would  steal  off  and  read  the  other. 

Which,  think  you,  shaped  the  life  of  Dickie  Loeb? 
Is  there  any  kind  of  question  about  it?  A  child: 
was  it  pure  maliciousness?  Was  a  boy  of  five  or 
six  or  seven  to  blame  for  it?  Where  did  he  get  it? 
He  got  it  where  we  all  get  our  ideas,  and  these  books 
became  a  part  of  his  dreams  and  a  part  of  his  life, 
and  as  he  grew  up  his  visions  grew  to  hallucinations. 
He  went  out  on  the  street  and  fantastically  directed 
his  companions,  who  were  not  there,  in  their  various 
moves  to  complete  the  perfect  crime. 

Before  I  would  tie  a  noose  around  the  neck  of  a 
boy  I  would  try  to  call  back  into  my  mind  the  emo- 
tions of  youth.  I  would  try  to  remember  what  the 
world  looked  like  to  me  when  I  was  a  child.  I 
would  try  to  remember  how  strong  were  these  in- 
stinctive, persistent  emotions  that  moved  my  life. 
I  would  try  to  remember  how  weak  and  inefficient 
was  youth  in  the  presence  of  the  surging,  controlling 
feelings  of  the  child.  One  that  honestly  remembers 
and  asks  himself  the  question  and  tries  to  unlock 
the  door  that  he  thinks  is  closed,  and  calls  back  the 
boy,  can  understand  the  boy. 

But,  your  Honor,  that  is  not  all  there  is  to  boy- 
hood.    Nature  is  strong  and  she  is  pitiless.     She 

i68 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

works  in  her  own  mysterious  way,  and  we  are  her 
victims.  We  have  not  much  to  do  with  it  ourselves. 
Nature  takes  this  job  in  hand,  and  we  play  our 
parts.  In  the  words  of  old  Omar  Khayyam,  we  are 
only 

Impotent  pieces  in  the  game  He  plays 
Upon  this  checkerboard  of  nights  and  days, 
Hither  and  thither  moves,  and  checks,  and  slays, 
And  one  by  one  back  in  the  closet  lays. 

What  had  this  boy  to  do  with  it?  He  was  not 
his  own  father;  he  was  not  his  own  mother;  he  was 
not  his  own  grandparents.  All  of  this  was  handed 
to  him.  He  did  not  surround  himself  with  gov- 
ernesses and  wealth.  And  yet  he  is  to  be  com- 
pelled to  pay. 

There  was  a  time  in  England,  running  down  as 
late  as  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  when 
judges  used  to  convene  court  and  call  juries  to  try 
a  horse,  a  dog,  a  pig,  for  crime.  I  have  in  my  li- 
brary a  story  of  a  judge  and  jury  and  lawyers  try- 
ing and  convicting  an  old  sow  for  lying  down  on  her 
ten  pigs  and  killing  them. 

Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  Dickie  Loeb  had 
any  more  to  do  with  his  making  than  any  other 
product  of  heredity  that  is  born  upon  the  earth? 

At  this  period  of  life  it  is  not  enough  to  take  a  boy 
—  your  Honor,  I  wish  I  knew  when  to  stop  talking 
about  this  question  that  always  has  interested  me 
so  much  —  it  is  not  enough  to  take  a  boy  filled  with 

169 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

his  dreams  and  his  phantasies  and  living  in  an  unreal 
world,  but  the  age  of  adolescence  comes  on  him  with 
all  the  rest.  What  does  he  know?  Both  these  boys 
are  in  the  adolescent  age;  both  these  boys,  as  every 
alienist  in  this  case  on  both  sides  tells  you,  are  in 
the  most  trying  period  of  the  life  of  a  child;  both 
these  boys,  when  the  call  of  sex  is  new  and  strange; 
both  these  boys,  at  a  time  seeking  to  adjust  their 
young  lives  to  the  world,  moved  by  the  strongest 
feelings  and  passions  that  have  ever  moved  men; 
both  these  boys,  at  the  time  boys  grow  insane,  at 
the  time  crimes  are  committed;  all  of  this  is  added 
to  all  the  rest  of  the  vagaries  of  their  lives.  Shall 
we  charge  them  with  full  responsibility  that  we  may 
have  a  hanging?  That  we  may  deck  Chicago  in  a 
holiday  garb  and  let  the  people  have  their  fill  of 
blood;  that  you  may  put  stains  upon  the  heart  of 
every  man,  woman  and  child  on  that  day,  and  that 
the  dead  walls  of  Chicago  will  tell  the  story  of  the 
shedding  of  their  blood? 

For  God's  sake,  are  we  crazy?  In  the  face  of 
history,  of  every  line  of  philosophy,  against  the 
teaching  of  every  religionist  and  seer  and  prophet 
the  world  has  ever  given  us,  we  are  still  doing  what 
our  barbaric  ancestors  did  when  they  came  out  of 
the  caves  and  the  woods. 

From  the  age  of  fifteen  to  the  age  of  twenty  or 
twenty-one,  the  child  has  the  burden  of  adolescence, 
of  puberty  and  sex  thrust  upon  him.  Girls  are  kept 
at  home  and  carefully  watched.     Boys  without  in- 

170 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

struction  are  left  to  work  the  period  out  for  them- 
selves. It  may  lead  to  excess.  It  may  lead  to  dis- 
grace.   It  may  lead  to  perversion.    Who  is  to  blame? 

Your  Honor,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to 
be  a  parent.  We  talk  of  motherhood,  and  yet  every 
woman  can  be  a  mother.  We  talk  of  fatherhood, 
and  yet  every  man  can  be  a  father.  Nature  takes 
care  of  that.  It  is  easy  to  be  a  parent.  But  to  be 
wise  and  farseeing  enough  to  understand  the  boy  is 
another  thing;  only  a  very  few  are  so  wise  and  so 
farseeing  as  that.  When  I  think  of  the  light  way 
Nature  has  of  picking  out  parents  and  populating 
the  earth,  having  them  born  and  die,  I  cannot  hold 
human  beings  to  the  same  degree  of  responsibility 
that  young  lawyers  hold  them  when  they  are  en- 
thusiastic in  a  prosecution.    I  know  what  it  means. 

I  know  there  are  no  better  citizens  in  Chicago 
than  the  fathers  of  these  poor  boys.  I  know  there 
were  no  better  women  than  their  mothers.  But  I 
am  going  to  be  honest  with  this  court,  if  it  is  at  the 
expense  of  both.  I  know  that  one  of  two  things 
happened  to  Richard  Loeb;  that  this  terrible  crime 
was  inherent  in  his  organism,  and  came  from  some 
ancestor,  or  that  it  came  through  his  education  and 
his  training  after  he  was  born.  Do  I  need  to  prove 
it?  Judge  Crowe  said  at  one  point  in  this  case,  when 
some  witness  spoke  about  their  wealth,  that  prob- 
ably that  was  responsible. 

To  believe  that  any  boy  is  responsible  for  himself 
or  his  early  training  is  an  absurdity  that  no  lawyer 

171 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

or  judge  should  be  guilty  of  today.  Somewhere  this 
came  to  this  boy.  If  his  failing  came  from  his 
heredity,  I  do  not  know  where  or  how.  None  of  us 
are  bred  perfect  and  pure,  and  the  color  of  our  hair, 
the  color  of  our  eyes,  our  stature,  the  weight  and 
fineness  of  our  brain,  and  everything  about  us  could, 
with  full  knowledge,  be  traced  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty; if  we  had  the  pedigree  it  could  be  traced 
just  the  same  in  a  boy  as  it  could  be  in  a  dog,  a 
horse,  or  cow. 

I  do  not  know  what  remote  ancestors  may  have 
sent  down  the  seed  that  corrupted  him,  and  I  do  not 
know  through  how  many  ancestors  it  may  have 
passed  until  it  reached  Dickie  Loeb.  All  I  know  is 
that  it  is  true,  and  there  is  not  a  biologist  in  the 
world  who  will  not  say  that  I  am  right.  If  it  did 
not  come  that  way,  then  I  know  that  if  he  was 
normal,  if  he  had  been  understood,  if  he  had  been 
trained  as  he  should  have  been,  it  would  not  have 
happened.  Not  that  anybody  may  not  slip,  but  I 
know  it  and  your  Honor  knows  it,  and  every  school- 
house  and  every  church  in  the  land  are  evidences 
of  it.     Else  why  build  them? 

Every  effort  to  protect  society  is  an  effort  toward 
training  the  youth  to  keep  the  path.  Every  bit  of 
training  in  the  world  proves  it,  and  it  likewise 
proves  that  it  sometimes  fails.  I  know  that  if  this 
boy  had  been  understood  and  properly  trained  — 
properly  for  him  —  and  the  training  that  he  got 
might  have  been  the  very  best  for  some  one  else  — 

172 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

but  if  it  had  been  the  proper  training  for  him  he 
would  not  be  in  this  court  room  today  with  the 
noose  above  his  head.  If  there  is  responsibility  any- 
where, it  is  back  of  him;  somewhere  in  the  infinite 
number  of  his  ancestors,  or  in  his  surroundings,  or 
in  both. 

We  may  have  all  the  dreams  and  visions  and  build 
all  the  castles  we  wish,  but  the  castles  of  youth 
should  be  discarded  with  youth,  and  when  they 
linger  to  the  time  when  boys  should  think  wiser 
things,  then  it  indicates  a  diseased  mind.  "  When  I 
was  young  I  thought  as  a  child,  I  spoke  as  a  child, 
I  understood  as  a  child;  but  now  I  have  put  off 
childish  things,"  said  the  Psalmist  twenty  centuries 
ago.  It  is  when  these  dreams  of  boyhood,  these 
phantasies  of  youth  still  linger,  and  the  growing  boy 
is  still  a  child  —  a  child  in  emotion,  a  child  in  feel- 
ing, a  child  in  hallucinations  —  that  you  can  say 
that  it  is  the  dreams  and  the  hallucinations  of  child- 
hood that  are  responsible  for  his  conduct. 

There  is  not  an  act  in  all  this  horrible  tragedy  that 
was  not  the  act  of  a  child,  the  act  of  a  child  wander- 
ing around  in  the  morning  of  life,  moved  by  the  new 
feelings  of  a  boy,  moved  by  the  uncontrolled  im- 
pulses which  his  teaching  was  not  strong  enough  to 
take  care  of,  moved  by  the  dreams  and  the  halluci- 
nations which  haunt  the  brain  of  a  child.  I  say, 
your  Honor,  that  it  would  be  the  height  of  cruelty, 
of  injustice,  of  wrong  and  barbarism  to  visit  the 
penalty  upon  this  boy. 

173 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Your  Honor,  again  I  want  to  say  that  all  parents 
can  be  criticized;  likewise  grandparents  and 
teachers.  Science  is  not  so  much  interested  in 
criticism  as  in  finding  causes.  Sometime  education 
will  be  more  scientific.  Sometime  we  will  try  to 
know  the  boy  before  we  educate  him  and  as  we 
educate  him.  Sometime  we  will  try  to  know  what 
will  fit  the  individual  boy,  instead  of  putting  all  boys 
through  the  same  course,  regardless  of  what  they  are. 

This  boy  needed  more  of  home,  more  love,  more 
directing.  He  needed  to  have  his  emotions 
awakened.  He  needed  guiding  hands  along  the  seri- 
ous road  that  youth  must  travel.  Had  these  been 
given  him,  he  would  not  be  here  today. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  want  to  speak  of  the  other 
lad,  Babe.  Babe  is  somewhat  older  than  Dick,  and 
is  a  boy  of  remarkable  mind  —  away  beyond  his 
years.  He  is  a  sort  of  freak  in  this  direction,  as  in 
others;  a  boy  without  emotions,  a  boy  obsessed  of 
philosophy,  a  boy  obsessed  of  learning,  busy  every 
minute  of  his  life. 

He  went  through  school  quickly;  he  went  to  col- 
lege young;  he  could  learn  faster  than  almost  every- 
body else.  His  emotional  life  was  lacking,  as  every 
alienist  in  this  case  excepting  Dr.  Krohn  has  told 
you.  He  was  just  a  half  boy,  an  intellect,  an  intel- 
lectual machine  going  without  balance  and  without 
a  governor,  seeking  to  find  out  everything  there  was 
in  life  intellectually;  seeking  to  solve  every  phi- 
losophy, but  using  his  intellect  only. 

174 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Of  course  his  family  did  not  understand  him;  few 
men  would.  His  mother  died  when  he  was  young; 
he  had  plenty  of  money;  everything  was  given  to 
him  that  he  wanted.  Both  these  boys  with  unlimited 
money;  both  these  boys  with  automobiles;  both  of 
these  boys  with  every  luxury  around  them  and  in 
front  of  them.    They  grew  up  in  this  environment. 

Babe  took  up  philosophy.  I  call  him  Babe,  not 
because  I  want  it  to  affect  your  Honor,  but  because 
everybody  else  does.  He  is  the  youngest  of  the 
family  and  I  suppose  that  is  why  he  got  his  nick- 
name. Mr.  Crowe  thinks  it  is  easier  to  hang  a  man 
than  a  boy,  and  so  I  will  call  him  a  man  if  I  can 
think  of  it.  He  grew  up  in  this  way.  He  became 
enamoured  of  the  philosophy  of  Nietzsche. 

Your  Honor,  I  have  read  almost  everything  that 
Nietzsche  ever  wrote.  He  was  a  man  of  a  wonder- 
ful intellect;  the  most  original  philosopher  of  the 
last  century.  A  man  who  probably  has  made  a 
deeper  imprint  on  philosophy  than  any  other  man 
within  a  hundred  years,  whether  right  or  wrong. 
Alore  books  have  been  written  about  him  than  prob- 
ably all  the  rest  of  the  philosophers  in  a  hundred 
years.  More  college  professors  have  talked  about 
him.  In  a  way  he  has  reached  more  people,  and 
still  he  has  been  a  philosopher  of  what  we  might 
call  the  intellectual  cult.  Nietzsche  believed  that 
sometime  the  superman  would  be  born,  that  evolu- 
tion was  working  toward  the  superman. 

He  wrote  one  book,  "  Beyond  Good  and  Evil," 

175 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

which  was  a  criticism  of  all  moral  codes  as  the  world 
understands  them;  a  treatise  holding  that  the  intel- 
ligent man  is  beyond  good  and  evil;  that  the  laws 
for  good  and  the  laws  for  evil  do  not  apply  to  those 
who  approach  the  superman.  He  wrote  some  ten  or 
fifteen  volumes  on  his  various  philosophical  ideas. 
Nathan  Leopold  is  not  the  only  boy  who  has  read 
Nietzsche.  He  may  be  the  only  one  who  was  in- 
fluenced in  the  way  that  he  was  influenced. 

I  have  just  made  a  few  short  extracts  from 
Nietzsche,  that  show  the  things  that  Nathan  read 
and  which  no  doubt  influenced  him.  These  extracts 
are  short  and  taken  almost  at  random.  It  is  not 
how  this  would  affect  you.  It  is  not  how  it  would 
affect  me.  The  question  is,  how  it  did  affect  the 
impressionable,  visionary,  dreamy  mind  of  a  boy? 

At  sixteen,  at  seventeen,  at  eighteen,  while 
healthy  boys  were  playing  baseball,  or  working  on 
the  farm,  or  doing  odd  jobs,  he  was  reading 
Nietzsche,  a  boy  who  never  should  have  seen  it,  at 
that  early  age.  Babe  was  obsessed  of  it,  and  here 
are  some  of  the  things  which  Nietzsche  taught: 

Why  so  soft,  oh,  my  brethren?  Why  so  soft,  so  un- 
resisting and  yielding?  Why  is  there  so  much  disavowal 
and  abnegation  in  your  heart?  Why  is  there  so  little 
fate  in  your  looks?  For  all  creators  are  hard,  and  it 
must  seem  blessedness  unto  you  to  press  your  hand  upon 
millenniums  and  upon  wax.  This  new  table,  oh,  my 
brethren,  I  put  over  you:  Become  hard.  To  be  obsessed 
by  moral  consideration  presupposes  a  very  low  grade  of 
intellect.    We  should  substitute  for  morality  the  will  to 

176 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

our  own  end,  and  consequently  to  the  means  to  accom- 
plish that. 

A  great  man,  a  man  that  nature  has  built  up  and  in- 
vented in  a  grand  style,  is  colder,  harder,  less  cautious 
and  more  free  from  the  fear  of  public  opinion.  He  does 
not  possess  the  virtues  which  are  compatible  with  re- 
spectability, with  being  respected,  nor  any  of  those 
things  which  are  counted  among  the  virtues  of  the  hard. 

Nietzsche  held  a  contemptuous,  scornful  atti- 
tude to  all  those  things  which  the  young  are  taught 
as  important  in  life;  a  fixing  of  new  values  which 
are  not  the  values  by  which  any  normal  child  has 
ever  yet  been  reared  —  a  philosophical  dream,  con- 
taining more  or  less  truth,  that  was  not  meant  by 
anyone  to  be  applied  to  life. 

Counsel  have  said  that  because  a  man  believes  in 
murder  that  does  not  excuse  him.  Quite  right.  But 
this  is  not  a  case  like  the  Anarchists  Case,  where  a 
number  of  men,  perhaps  honestly  believing  in  revo- 
lution and  knowing  the  consequences  of  their  act 
and  knowing  its  illegal  character,  were  held  respon- 
sible for  murder.  Of  course  the  books  are  full  of 
statements  that  the  fact  that  a  man  believes  in  com- 
mitting a  crime  does  not  excuse  him. 

That  is  not  this  case,  and  counsel  must  know  that 
it  is  not  this  case.  Here  is  a  boy  at  sixteen  or  seven- 
teen becoming  obsessed  with  these  doctrines.  There 
isn't  any  question  about  the  facts.  Their  own  wit- 
nesses tell  it  and  our  witnesses  tell  it.  It  was  not  a 
casual  bit  of  philosophy  with  him;  it  was  his  life. 

177 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

He  believed  in  a  superman.  He  and  Dickie  Loeb 
were  the  supermen.  There  might  have  been  others, 
but  they  were  two,  and  two  chums.  The  ordinary 
commands  of  society  were  not  for  him.  Many  of 
us  read  this  philosophy  but  know  that  it  has  no 
actual  application  to  life;  but  not  he.  It  became  a 
part  of  his  being.  He  lived  it  and  practiced  it;  he 
thought  it  applied  to  him,  and  he  could  not  have 
believed  it  excepting  that  it  either  caused  a  dis- 
eased mind  or  was  the  result  of  a  diseased  mind. 

In  New  York  State  a  man  named  Freeman  be- 
came obsessed  in  a  very  strange  way  of  religious 
ideas.  He  read  the  story  of  Isaac  and  Abraham  and 
he  felt  a  call  that  he  must  sacrifice  his  son.  He 
arranged  an  altar  in  his  parlor.  He  converted  his 
wife  to  the  idea.  He  took  his  little  babe  and  put  it 
on  the  altar  and  cut  its  throat.  Was  he  sane? 
Was  he  normal?  Was  this  poor  fellow  responsible? 
Not  in  the  least.  And  he  was  acquitted  because  he 
was  the  victim  of  a  delusion.  Men  are  largely  what 
their  ideas  make  them.  Boys  are  largely  what  their 
ideas  make  them. 

You  remember  that  I  asked  Dr.  Church  about 
these  religious  cases  and  he  said,  "  Yes,  many  peo- 
ple go  to  the  insane  asylum  on  account  of  them," 
that  "  they  place  a  literal  meaning  on  parables  and 
believe  them  thoroughly."  I  asked  Dr.  Church, 
whom  I  again  say  I  believe  to  be  an  honest  man, 
and  an  intelligent  man  —  I  asked  him  whether  the 
same  thing  might  be  done  or  might  come  from  a 

178 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

philosophical  belief,  and  he  said,  "If  one  believed 
it  strongly  enough." 

And  I  asked  him  about  Nietzsche.  He  said  he 
knew  something  of  Nietzsche,  something  of  his  re- 
sponsibility for  the  war,  for  which  he  perhaps  was 
not  responsible.  He  said  he  knew  something  about 
his  doctrines.  I  asked  him  what  became  of  him, 
and  he  said  he  was  insane  for  fifteen  years  just  before 
the  time  of  his  death.  His  very  doctrine  is  a  species 
of  insanity. 

Here  is  a  man,  a  wise  man  —  perhaps  not  wise, 
but  brilliant  —  a  thoughtful  man  who  has  made  his 
impress  upon  the  world.  Every  student  of  philos- 
ophy knows  him.  His  own  doctrines  made  him  a 
maniac.  And  here  is  a  young  boy,  in  the  adolescent 
age,  harassed  by  everything  that  harasses  children, 
who  takes  this  philosophy  and  believes  it  liter- 
ally. 

Do  you  suppose  this  mad  act  could  have  been 
done  by  him  in  any  other  way?  What  could  he 
have  to  win  from  this  homicide?  A  boy  with  a 
beautiful  home,  with  automobiles,  a  graduate  of 
college,  going  to  Europe,  and  then  to  study  law 
at  Harvard;  as  brillant  in  intellect  as  any  boy  that 
you  could  find;  a  boy  with  every  prospect  that  life 
might  hold  out  to  him;  and  yet  he  goes  out  and  com- 
mits this  strange,  wild  act,  that  he  may  die  on  the 
gallows  or  live  in  a  prison  cell  until  he  dies  of  old 
age  or  disease.  He  did  it,  obsessed  of  an  idea,  per- 
haps to  some  extent  influenced  by  what  has  not  been 

179 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

developed  publicly  in  this  case  —  perversions  that 
were  present  in  the  boy.  All  proving  a  diseased 
mind. 

Now,  I  have  said,  that,  as  to  Loeb,  if  there  is 
anybody  to  blame  it  is  back  of  him.  Your  Honor, 
lots  of  things  happen  in  this  world  that  nobody  is 
to  blame  for.  In  fact,  I  am  not  very  much  for  set- 
tling blame  myself.  If  I  could  settle  the  blame  on 
somebody  else  for  this  special  act,  I  would  wonder 
why  that  somebody  else  did  it,  and  I  know  if  I 
could  find  that  out,  I  would  move  it  back  still  an- 
other peg.  I  know,  your  Honor,  that  every  atom  of 
life  in  all  this  universe  is  bound  up  together.  I 
know  that  a  pebble  cannot  be  thrown  into  the  ocean 
without  disturbing  every  drop  of  water  in  the  sea. 
I  know  that  every  life  is  inextricably  mixed  and 
woven  with  every  other  life.  I  know  that  every 
influence,  conscious  and  unconscious,  acts  and  reacts 
on  every  living  organism,  and  that  no  one  can  fix  the 
blame.  I  know  that  all  life  is  a  series  of  infinite 
chances,  which  sometimes  result  one  way  and  some- 
times another.  I  have  not  the  infinite  wisdom  that 
can  fathom  it,  neither  has  any  other  human  brain. 
But  I  do  know  that  if  back  of  it  is  a  power  that 
made  it,  that  power  alone  can  tell,  and  if  there  is  no 
power,  then  it  is  an  infinite  chance,  which  man 
cannot  solve. 

Why  should  this  boy's  life  be  bound  up  with 
Frederick  Nietzsche,  who  died,  a  few  years  ago, 
insane,  in  Germany?    I  don't  know.    I  only  know  it 

i8o 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

is.  I  know  that  no  man  who  ever  wrote  a  line  that 
I  read  failed  to  influence  me  to  some  extent.  I 
know  that  every  life  I  ever  touched  influenced  me, 
and  I  influenced  it;  and  that  it  is  not  given  to  me 
to  unravel  the  infinite  causes  and  say,  "  This  is  I, 
and  this  is  you;  I  am  responsible  for  so  much,  and 
you  are  r£sponsible  for  so  much."  I  know  that  in 
the  universe  everything  has  its  place  and  that  the 
smallest  particle  is  a  part  of  all.  Tell  me  that  you 
can  visit  the  wrath  of  fate  and  chance  and  life  and 
eternity  upon  a  nineteen-year-old  boy!  If  you 
could,  justice  would  be  a  travesty  and  mercy  a 
fraud. 

I  might  say  further  about  Nathan  Leopold  — 
where  did  he  get  this  philosophy?  At  college?  He 
did  not  make  it,  your  Honor.  He  did  not  write 
these  books,  and  I  will  venture  to  say  there  are  at 
least  ten  thousand  books  on  Nietzsche  and  his 
philosophy.  There  is  no  university  in  the  world 
where  the  professors  are  not  familiar  with  Nie- 
tzsche; not  one.  There  is  not  an  intellectual  man  in 
the  world  whose  life  and  feelings  run  to  philosophy, 
who  is  not  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  Nie- 
tzschean  philosophy.  Some  believe  it,  and  some  do 
not  believe  it.  Some  read  it  as  I  do,  and  take  it  as 
a  theory,  a  dream,  a  vision,  mixed  with  good  and 
bad,  but  not  in  any  way  related  to  human  life. 
Some  take  it  seriously.  The  universities  perhaps 
do  not  all  teach  it,  for  perhaps  some  teach  nothing 
in  philosophy;  but  they  give  the  boys  the  books  of 

i8i 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  masters,  and  tell  them  what  they  taught,  and 
discuss  the  doctrines. 

I  will  guarantee  that  you  can  go  down  to  the 
University  of  Chicago  today  —  into  its  big  library 
—  and  find  over  a  thousand  volumes  on  Nietzsche, 
and  I  am  sure  I  speak  moderately.  Your  Honor,  it 
is  hardly  fair  to  hang  a  nineteen-year-old  boy  for 
the  philosophy  that  was  taught  him  at  the  uni- 
versity. The  university,  the  scholars  and  publishers 
of  the  world  would  be  more  to  blame  than  he  is. 

Now,  I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood  about 
this.  Even  for  the  sake  of  saving  the  lives  of  my 
clients,  I  do  not  want  to  be  dishonest,  and  tell  the 
court  something  that  I  do  not  honestly  think  in  this 
case,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  universities  are  to 
blame,  I  do  not  think  they  should  be  held  respon- 
sible, I  do  think,  however,  that  they  are  too  large, 
and  that  they  should  keep  a  closer  watch,  if  possible, 
upon  the  individual.  But,  you  cannot  destroy 
thought  because,  forsooth,  some  brain  may  be  de- 
ranged by  thought.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  university, 
as  I  conceive  it,  to  be  the  great  storehouse  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  ages,  and  to  let  students  go  there,  and 
learn,  and  choose,  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  has 
meant  the  death  of  many;  that  we  cannot  help. 
Every  changed  idea  in  the  world  has  had  its  conse- 
quences. Every  new  religious  doctrine  has  created 
its  victims.  Every  new  philosophy  has  caused  suf- 
fering and  death.  Every  new  machine  has  carved 
up  men  while  it  served  the  world.    No  railroad  can 

182 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

be  built  without  the  destruction  of  human  life.  No 
great  building  can  be  erected  but  that  unfortunate 
workmen  fall  to  the  earth  and  die.  No  great  move- 
ment that  does  not  bear  its  toll  of  life  and  death;  no 
great  ideal  but  does  good  and  harm,  and  we  cannot 
stop  because  it  may  do  harm. 

I  have  no  idea  in  this  case  that  this  act  would  ever 
have  been  committed  or  participated  in  by  him  ex- 
cepting for  the  philosophy  which  he  had  taken  liter- 
ally, which  belonged  to  older  boys  and  older  men, 
and  which  no  one  can  take  literally  and  practice 
literally  and  live.  So,  your  Honor,  I  do  not  mean 
to  unload  this  act  on  that  man  or  this  man,  on  this 
organization  or  that  organization.  I  am  trying  to 
trace  causes.  I  am  trying  to  trace  them  honestly. 
I  am  trying  to  trace  them  with  the  light  I  have. 

There  is  something  else  in  this  case,  your  Honor, 
that  is  stronger  still.  There  is  a  large  element  of 
chance  in  life.  I  know  I  will  die.  I  don't  know 
when;  I  don't  know  how;  I  don't  know  where;  and 
I  don't  want  to  know.  I  know  it  will  come.  I  know 
that  it  depends  on  infinite  chances.  Do  I  live  to 
myself?  Did  I  make  myself?  And  control  my 
fate?  Can  I  fix  my  death  unless  I  suicide?  I  can- 
not do  that  because  the  will  to  live  is  too  strong. 

My  death  will  depend  upon  chances.  It  may  be 
by  the  taking  in  of  a  germ;  it  may  be  a  pistol;  it 
may  be  the  decaying  of  my  faculties,  and  all  that 
makes  life;  it  may  be  a  cancer;  it  may  be  any  one 
of  an  indefinite  number  of  things,  and  where  I  am 

183 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

at  a  certain  time,  and  whether  I  take  in  that  germ, 
and  the  condition  of  my  system  when  I  breathe  is 
an  accident  which  is  sealed  up  in  the  book  of  fate 
and  which  no  human  being  can  open. 

These  boys,  neither  one  of  them,  could  have  com- 
mitted this  act  excepting  by  coming  together.  It 
was  not  the  act  for  one;  it  was  the  act  of  two.  It 
was  the  act  of  their  planning,  their  conniving,  their 
believing  in  each  other;  their  thinking  themselves 
supermen.  Without  it  they  could  not  have  done  it. 
It  would  not  have  happened.  Their  parents  hap- 
pened to  meet,  these  boys  happened  to  meet;  some 
sort  of  chemical  alchemy  operated  so  that  they  cared 
for  each  other,  and  poor  Bobby  Franks'  dead  body, 
stripped  and  naked,  was  left  in  a  culvert  down  near 
the  Indiana  line.  I  know  it  came  through  the  mad 
act  of  mad  boys.  Mr.  Savage  told  us  that  Franks, 
if  he  lived,  would  have  been  a  great  man.  I  want 
to  leave  this  thought  with  your  Honor  now.  I  do 
not  know  what  Bobby  Franks  would  have  been  had 
he  grown  to  be  a  man.  I  do  not  know  the  laws  that 
control  one's  growth.  Sometimes,  your  Honor, 
a  boy  of  great  promise  is  cut  off  in  his  early  youth. 
Sometimes  he  dies  and  is  placed  in  a  culvert.  Some- 
times a  boy  of  great  promise  stands  on  a  trapdoor 
and  is  hanged  by  the  neck  until  dead.  Sometimes 
he  dies  of  diphtheria.  Death  somehow  pays  no  at- 
tention to  age,  sex,  prospects,  wealth  or  intellect. 

It  comes,  and  perhaps  —  I  can  only  say  perhaps, 
for  I  never  professed  to  unravel  the  mysteries  of 

184 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

fate,  and  I  cannot  tell  —  perhaps  the  boy  who  died 
at  fourteen  did  as  much  as  if  he  had  died  at  seventy, 
and  perhaps  the  boy  who  died  as  a  babe  did  as  much 
as  if  he  had  lived  longer.  Perhaps,  somewhere  in 
fate  and  chance,  it  might  be  that  he  lived  as  long 
as  he  should. 

And  I  want  to  say  this,  that  the  death  of  poor 
little  Bobby  Franks  should  not  be  in  vain.  Would 
it  mean  anything  if  on  account  of  that  death,  these 
two  boys  were  taken  out  and  a  rope  tied  around 
their  necks  and  they  died  felons?  Would  that  show 
that  Bobby  Franks  had  a  purpose  in  his  life  and  a 
purpose  in  his  death?  No,  your  Honor,  the  unfor- 
tunate and  tragic  death  of  this  weak  young  lad 
should  mean  something.  It  should  mean  an  appeal 
to  the  fathers  and  the  mothers,  an  appeal  to  the 
teachers,  to  the  religious  guides,  to  society  at  large. 
It  should  mean  an  appeal  to  all  of  them  to  appraise 
children,  to  understand  the  emotions  that  control 
them,  to  understand  the  ideas  that  possess  them,  to 
teach  them  to  avoid  the  pitfalls  of  life. 

I  have  discussed  somewhat  in  detail  these  two 
boys  separately.  Their  coming  together  was  the 
means  of  their  undoing.  Your  Honor  is  familiar 
with  the  facts  in  reference  to  their  association. 
They  had  a  weird,  almost  impossible  relationship. 
Leopold,  with  his  obsession  of  the  superman,  had 
repeatedly  said  that  Loeb  was  his  idea  of  the  super- 
man. He  had  the  attitude  toward  him  that  one  has 
to  his  most  devoted  friend,  or  that  a  man  has  to  a 

185 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

lover.  Without  the  combination  of  these  two,  noth- 
ing of  this  sort  probably  could  have  happened.  It 
is  not  necessary  for  us,  your  Honor,  to  rely  upon 
words  to  prove  the  condition  of  these  boys'  minds, 
and  to  prove  the  effect  of  this  strange  and  fatal 
relationship  between  these  two  boys. 

It  is  mostly  told  in  a  letter  which  the  State  itself 
introduced  in  this  case.  Not  the  whole  story,  but 
enough  of  it  is  shown,  so  that  I  take  it  that  no  intel- 
ligent, thoughtful  person  could  fail  to  realize  what 
was  the  relation  between  them  and  how  they  had 
played  upon  each  other  to  effect  their  downfall  and 
their  ruin.  I  want  to  read  this  letter,  a  letter  dated 
October  9th,  a  month  and  three  days  before  their 
trip  to  Ann  Arbor,  and  I  want  the  court  to  say  in 
his  own  mind  whether  this  letter  was  anything  but 
the  product  of  a  diseased  mind,  and  if  it  does  not 
show  a  relationship  that  was  responsible  for  this 
terrible  homicide.  This  was  written  by  Leopold  to 
Loeb.  They  lived  close  together,  only  a  few  blocks 
from  each  other;  saw  each  other  every  day;  but 
Leopold  wrote  him  this  letter: 

October  9,  1923. 
Dear  Dick: 

In  view  of  our  former  relations,  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  any  excuse  for  writing 
you  at  this  time,  and  still  I  am  going  to  state  my  reasons 
for  so  doing,  as  this  may  turn  out  to  be  a  long  letter,  and 
I  don't  want  to  cause  you  the  inconvenience  of  reading 
it  all  to  find  out  what  it  contains  if  you  are  not  interested 
in  the  subjects  dealt  with. 

186 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

First,  I  am  enclosing  the  document  which  I  mentioned 
to  you  today,  and  which  I  will  explain  later.  Second, 
I  am  going  to  tell  you  of  a  new  fact  which  has  come  up 
since  our  discussion.  And  third,  I  am  going  to  put  in 
writing  what  my  attitude  is  toward  our  present  relations, 
with  a  view  of  avoiding  future  possible  misunderstand- 
ings, and  in  the  hope  (though  I  think  it  rather  vain)  that 
possibly  we  may  have  misunderstood  each  other,  and  can 
yet  clear  this  matter  up. 

Now,  as  to  the  first,  I  wanted  you  this  afternoon,  and 
still  want  you,  to  feel  that  we  are  on  an  equal  footing 
legally,  and,  therefore,  I  purposely  committed  the  same 
tort  of  which  you  were  guilty,  the  only  difference  being 
that  in  your  case  the  facts  would  be  harder  to  prove  than 
in  mine,  should  I  deny  them.  The  enclosed  document 
should  secure  you  against  changing  my  mind  in  admit- 
ting the  facts,  if  the  matter  should  come  up,  as  it  would 
prove  to  any  court  that  they  were  true. 

As  to  the  second.  On  your  suggestion  I  immediately 
phoned  Dick  Rubel,  and  speaking  from  a  paper  pre- 
pared beforehand  (to  be  sure  of  the  exact  wording)  said: 
"  Dick,  when  we  were  together  yesterday,  did  I  tell  you 
that  Dick  (Loeb)  had  told  me  the  things  which  I  then 
told  you,  or  that  it  was  merely  my  opinion  that  I 
believed  them  to  be  so?  "  I  asked  this  twice  to  be  sure 
he  understood,  and  on  the  same  answer  both  times  (which 
I  took  down  as  he  spoke)  felt  that  he  did  understand. 
He  replied:  "  No,  you  did  not  tell  me  that  Dick  told  you 
these  things,  but  said  that  they  were  in  your  opinion 
true." 

He  further  denied  telling  you  subsequently  that  I  had 
said  that  they  were  gleaned  from  conversation  with  you, 
and  I  then  told  him  that  he  was  quite  right,  that  you 
never  had  told  me.  I  further  told  him  that  this  was 
merely  your  suggestion  of  how  to  settle  a  question  of 

187 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

fact,  that  he  was  in  no  way  implicated,  and  that  neither 
of  us  would  be  angry  with  him  at  his  reply.  (I  imply 
your  assent  to  this.)  This  of  course  proves  that  you 
were  mistaken  this  afternoon  in  the  question  of  my  hav- 
ing actually  and  technically  broken  confidence,  and  voids 
my  apology,  which  I  made  contingent  on  proof  of  this 
matter. 

Now,  as  to  the  third,  last,  and  most  important  ques- 
tion. When  you  came  to  my  home  this  afternoon  I  ex- 
pected either  to  break  friendship  with  you  or  attempt  to 
kill  you  unless  you  told  me  why  you  acted  as  you  did 
yesterday.  You  did,  however,  tell  me,  and  hence  the 
question  shifted  to  the  fact  that  I  would  act  as  before 
if  you  persisted  in  thinking  me  treacherous,  either  in 
act  (which  you  waived  if  Dick's  opinion  went  with  mine) 
or  in  intention. 

Now,  I  apprehend,  though  here  I  am  not  quite  sure, 
that  you  said  that  you  did  not  think  me  treacherous  in 
intent,  nor  ever  have,  but  that  you  considered  me  in  the 
wrong  and  expected  such  a  statement  from  me.  This 
statement  I  unconditionally  refused  to  make  until  such 
time  as  I  may  become  convinced  of  its  truth. 

However,  the  question  of  our  relation  I  think  must  be 
in  your  hands  (unless  the  above  conceptions  are  mis- 
taken) inasmuch  as  you  have  satisfied  first  one  and  then 
the  other  requirement,  upon  which  I  agreed  to  refrain 
from  attempting  to  kill  you  or  refusing  to  continue  our 
friendship.  Hence  I  have  no  reason  not  to  continue  to 
be  on  friendly  terms  with  you,  and  would  under  ordinary 
conditions  continue  as  before. 

The  only  question,  then,  is  with  you.  You  demand 
me  to  perform  an  act,  namely,  state  that  I  acted  wrongly. 
This  I  refuse.  Now  it  is  up  to  you  to  inflict  the  penalty 
for  this  refusal  —  at  your  discretion,  to  break  friendship, 
inflict  physical  punishment,  or  anything  else  you  like,  or 

i88 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

on  the  other  hand  to  continue  as  before.  The  decision, 
therefore,  must  rest  with  you.  This  is  all  of  my  opinion 
on  the  right  and  wrong  of  the  matter. 

Now  comes  a  practical  question.  I  think  that  I  would 
ordinarily  be  expected  to,  and  in  fact  do  expect  to  con- 
tinue my  attitude  toward  you,  as  before,  until  I  learn 
either  by  direct  words  or  by  conduct  on  your  part  which 
way  your  decision  has  been  formed.    This  I  shall  do. 

Now  a  word  of  advice.  I  do  not  wish  to  influence  your 
decision  either  way,  but  I  do  want  to  warn  you  that  in 
case  you  deem  it  advisable  to  discontinue  our  friendship, 
that  in  both  our  interests  extreme  care  must  be  had.    The 

motif  of  "  A  falling  out  of "  would  be  sure  to 

be  popular,  which  is  patently  undesirable  and  forms  an 
irksome  but  unavoidable  bond  between  us.  Therefore, 
it  is,  in  my  humble  opinion,  expedient,  though  our 
breech  need  be  no  less  real  in  fact,  yet  to  observe  the 
conventionalities,  such  as  salutation  on  the  street  and  a 
general  appearance  of  at  least  not  unfriendly  relations 
on  all  occasions  when  we  may  be  thrown  together  in 
public. 

Now,  Dick,  I  am  going  to  make  a  request  to  which  I 
have  perhaps  no  right,  and  yet  which  I  dare  to  make  also 
for  "  Auld  Lang  Syne."  Will  you,  if  not  too  incon- 
venient, let  me  know  your  answer  (before  I  leave  tomor- 
row) on  the  last  count?  This,  to  which  I  have  no  right, 
would  greatly  help  my  peace  of  mind  in  the  next  few 
days  when  it  is  most  necessary  to  me.  You  can  if  you 
will  merely  call  up  my  home  before  12  noon  and  leave 
a  message  saying,  "  Dick  says  yes,"  if  you  wish  our  rela- 
tions to  continue  as  before,  and  "  Dick  says  no,"  if  not. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  your  decision  will  of 
course  have  no  effect  on  my  keeping  to  myself  our  con- 
fidences of  the  past,  and  that  I  regret  the  whole  affair 
more  than  I  can  say. 

189 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Hoping  not  to  have  caused  you  too  much  trouble  in 
reading  this,  I  am  (for  the  present)  as  ever, 

Babe. 

Now,  I  undertake  to  say  that  under  any  inter- 
pretation of  this  case,  taking  into  account  all  the 
things  your  Honor  knows,  that  have  not  been  made 
public,  or  leaving  them  out,  nobody  can  interpret 
that  letter  excepting  on  the  theory  of  a  diseased 
mind,  and  with  it  goes  this  strange  document  which 
was  referred  to  in  the  letter: 

I,  Nathan  F.  Leopold,  Jr.,  being  under  no  duress  or 
compulsion,  do  hereby  affirm  and  declare  that  on  this, 
the  Qth  day  of  October,  1923,  I  for  reasons  of  my  own 
locked  the  door  of  the  room  in  which  I  was  with  one 
Richard  A.  Loeb,  with  the  intent  of  blocking  his  only 
feasible  mode  of  egress,  and  that  I  further  indicated  my 
intention  of  applying  physical  force  upon  the  person  of 
the  said  Richard  A.  Loeb  if  necessary  to  carry  out  my 
design,  to-wit,  to  block  his  only  feasible  mode  of  egress. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  case,  whether  heard  alone 
by  the  court  or  heard  in  public,  that  can  explain 
these  documents,  on  the  theory  that  the  defendants 
were  normal  human  beings. 

The  same  may  be  said  also  of  the  other  letter, 
dated  October  10,  from  Babe,  if  I  may  be  permitted 
to  call  him  Babe  until  you  hang  him.*  If  the  ex- 
pressions in  those  letters  are  sane  expressions,  your 
Honor,  the  rest  of  the  world  is  crazy. 

*  Editor's  Note.  —  The  letter  here  referred  to  by  Mr.  Dar- 
row  is  printed  in  full  beginning  on  page  222  of  this  volume. 

190 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now,  both  sides  have  called  alienists  and  I  will 
refer  to  that  for  a  few  moments.  The  facts  here  are 
plain;  when  these  boys  had  made  the  confession  on 
Sunday  afternoon  before  their  counsel  or  their 
friends  had  any  chance  to  see  them,  Mr.  Crowe  sent 
out  for  four  men.  He  sent  out  for  Dr.  Patrick,  who 
is  an  alienist;  Dr.  Church,  who  is  an  alienist;  Dr. 
Krohn,  who  is  a  witness,  a  testifier;  and  Dr.  Singer, 
who  is  pretty  good  —  I  would  not  criticize  him  but  I 
would  not  class  him  with  Patrick  and  with  Church. 

I  have  said  to  your  Honor  that  in  my  opinion  he 
sent  for  the  two  ablest  men  in  Chicago  as  far  as 
the  public  knows  them,  Dr.  Church  and  Dr.  Patrick. 
You  heard  Dr.  Church's  testimony.  Dr.  Church  is 
an  honest  man  though  an  alienist.  He  admitted  the 
failure  of  emotional  life  in  these  boys;  he  admitted 
its  importance;  he  admitted  the  importance  of  be- 
liefs strongly  held  in  human  conduct;  he  said  him- 
self that  if  he  could  get  at  all  the  facts  he  would 
understand  what  was  back  of  this  strange  murder. 
Every  single  position  that  we  have  claimed  in  this 
case  Dr.  Church  admitted. 

Dr.  Singer  did  the  same.  The  only  difference  be- 
tween them  was  this,  it  took  but  one  question  to  get 
Dr.  Church  to  admit  it,  and  it  took  ten  to  a  dozen 
to  get  Dr.  Singer. 

Now,  what  did  they  do  in  their  examination? 
What  kind  of  a  chance  did  these  alienists  have?  It 
is  perfectly  obvious  that  they  had  none.  Church, 
Patrick,  Krohn  went  into  a  room  with  these  two 

191 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

boys  who  had  been  in  the  possession  of  the  State's 
Attorney's  office  for  sixty  hours;  they  were  sur- 
rounded by  policemen,  were  surrounded  by  guards 
and  detectives  and  State's  Attorneys;  twelve  or  fif- 
teen of  them,  and  here  they  told  their  story.  Of 
course  this  audience  had  a  friendly  attitude  toward 
them.  I  know  my  friend  Judge  Crowe  had  a 
friendly  attitude  because  I  saw  divers,  various  and 
sundry  pictures  of  Prosecutor  Crowe  taken  with 
these  boys.  When  I  first  saw  them  I  believed  it 
showed  friendship  for  the  boys,  but  now  I  am  in- 
clined to  think  that  he  had  them  taken  just  as  a 
lawyer  who  goes  up  in  the  country  fishing  has  his 
picture  taken  with  his  catch. 

The  boys  had  been  led  doubtless  to  believe  that 
these  people  were  friends.  They  were  taken  there, 
in  the  presence  of  all  this  crowd.  What  was  done? 
The  boys  told  their  story,  and  that  was  all. 

Of  course,  Krohn  remembered  a  lot  that  did  not 
take  place  —  and  we  would  expect  that  of  him;  and 
he  forgot  much  that  did  take  place  —  and  we  would 
expect  that  of  him,  too.  So  far  as  the  honest  wit- 
nesses were  concerned,  they  said  that  not  a  word 
was  spoken  excepting  a  little  conversation  upon 
birds,  and  the  relation  of  the  story  that  they  had 
already  given  to  the  State's  Attorney;  and  from 
that,  and  nothing  else,  both  Patrick  and  Church  said 
they  showed  no  reaction  as  ordinary  persons  should 
show  it,  and  intimated  clearly  that  the  commission 
of  the  crime  itself  would  put  them  on  inquiry  as  to 

192 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

whether  these  boys  were  mentally  right;  both  ad- 
mitted that  the  conditions  surrounding  them  made 
the  right  kind  of  examination  impossible;  both  ad- 
mitted that  they  needed  a  better  chance  to  form  a 
reliable  opinion.  The  most  they  said  was  that  at 
this  time  they  saw  no  evidence  of  insanity. 

Singer  did  a  thing  more  marvelous  still.  He  never 
saw  these  boys  until  he  came  into  this  court,  ex- 
cepting when  they  were  brought  down  in  violation 
of  their  constitutional  rights  to  the  office  of  Judge 
Crowe,  after  they  had  been  turned  over  to  the  jailer, 
and  there  various  questions  were  asked  them,  and 
to  all  of  these  the  boys  replied  that  they  respect- 
fully refused  to  answer  on  advice  of  counsel.  And 
yet  that  was  enough  for  Singer. 

First  of  all,  we  called  Dr.  William  A.  White.  And 
who  is  he?  For  many  years  he  has  been  superin- 
tendent of  the  Government  Hospital  for  the  Insane 
in  Washington;  a  man  who  has  written  more  books, 
delivered  more  lectures  and  had  more  honors  and 
knows  this  subject  better  than  all  their  alienists  put 
together;  a  man  who  knows  his  subject,  and  whose 
ability  and  truthfulness  must  have  impressed  this 
court. 

Whom  else  did  we  get?  Do  I  need  to  say  any- 
thing about  Dr.  Healy?  Is  there  any  question  about 
his  integrity?  A  man  who  seldom  goes  into  court 
except  upon  the  order  of  the  court.  No  man  stands 
higher  in  Chicago  than  Dr.  Healy.  No  man  has 
done  as  much  work  in  the  study  of  adolescence. 

193 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

No  man  has  read  or  written  or  thought  or  worked 
as  much  with  the  young. .  No  man  knows  the  adoles- 
cent boy  as  well  as  Dr.  Healy.  Dr.  Healy  began 
his  research  and  his  practice  in  Chicago,  and  was 
the  first  psychiatrist  of  the  boys'  court.  He  was 
then  made  a  director  of  the  Baker  Foundation  of 
Boston  and  is  now  carrying  on  his  work  in  connec- 
tion with  the  courts  of  Boston.  His  books  are 
known  wherever  men  study  boys.  His  reputation 
is  known  all  over  the  United  States  and  in  Europe. 

Dr.  Glueck,  who  was  for  years  the  alienist  at  Sing 
Sing,  and  connected  with  the  penal  institutions  in 
the  State  of  New  York;  a  man  of  eminent  attain- 
ments and  ripe  scholarship. 

And  Dr.  Hulbert,  a  young  man  who  spent  nine- 
teen days  in  the  examination  of  these  boys,  together 
with  Dr.  Bowman,  an  eminent  doctor  in  his  line 
from  Boston.  These  two  physicians  spent  all  this 
time  getting  every  detail  of  these  boys'  lives,  and 
structures;  each  one  of  these  alienists  took  all  the 
time  needed  for  a  thorough  examination,  without 
the  presence  of  lawyers,  detectives  and  policemen. 
Each  one  of  these  psychiatrists  tells  this  court  the 
story,  the  sad,  pitiful  story,  of  the  unfortunate 
minds  of  these  two  young  lads. 

I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion about  the  relative  value  of  these  two  sets  of 
alienists;  there  can  be  no  question  that  White, 
Glueck,  Hulbert  and  Healy  knew  what  they  were 
talking  about,  for  they  had  every  chance  to  find  out. 

194 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

They  are  either  lying  to  this  court,  or  their  opinion 
is  good.  On  the  other  hand,  not  one  single  man 
called  by  the  State  had  any  chance  to  know.  He 
was  called  in  to  see  these  boys,  the  same  as  the  State 
would  call  a  hangman:  "  Here  are  the  boys;  officer, 
do  your  duty."    And  that  is  all  there  was  of  it. 

I  want  to  discuss  now  another  thing  which  this 
court  must  consider  and  which  to  my  mind  is  abso- 
lutely conclusive  in  this  case.  That  is,  the  age  of 
these  boys.  I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  it  is  not 
possible  for  any  court  to  hang  these  two  boys  if  he 
pays  any  attention  whatever  to  the  modern  attitude 
toward  the  young,  if  he  pays  any  attention  whatever 
to  the  precedents  in  this  country,  if  he  pays  any  at- 
tention to  the  humane  instincts  which  move  ordi- 
nary men. 

I  have  a  list  of  executions  in  Cook  County,  begin- 
ning in  1840,  which  I  presume  covers  the  first  one, 
because  I  asked  to  have  it  go  to  the  beginning. 
Ninety  poor  unfortunate  men  have  given  up  their 
lives  to  stop  murder  in  Chicago.  Ninety  men  have 
been  hanged  by  the  neck  until  dead,  because  of  the 
ancient  superstition  that  in  some  way  hanging  one 
keeps  another  from  committing  a  crime.  The  ancient 
superstition,  I  say,  because  I  defy  the  State  to 
point  to  a  criminologist,  scientist,  a  student,  who 
has  ever  said  it.  Still  we  go  on,  as  if  human  conduct 
was  not  influenced  and  controlled  by  natural  laws 
the  same  as  all  the  rest  of  the  universe  is  the  subject 
of  law.    We  treat  crime  as  if  it  had  no  cause.    We 

195 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

go  on  saying,  "  Hang  the  unfortunates,  and  it  will 
end."  Was  there  ever  a  murder  without  a  cause? 
And  yet  all  punishment  proceeds  upon  the  theory 
that  there  is  no  cause;  and  the  only  way  to  treat 
crime  is  to  intimidate  every  one  into  goodness  and 
obedience  to  law. 

Crime  has  its  cause.  Perhaps  all  crimes  do  not 
have  the  same  cause,  but  they  all  have  some  cause. 
And  people  today  are  seeking  to  find  out  the  cause. 
Scientists  are  studying  it;  criminologists  are  inves- 
tigating it;  but  we  lawyers  go  on  and  on  and  on, 
punishing  and  hanging  and  thinking  that  by  general 
terror  we  can  stamp  out  crime. 

If  a  doctor  were  called  on  to  treat  typhoid  fever 
he  would  probably  try  to  find  out  what  kind  of  milk 
or  water  the  patient  drank,  and  perhaps  clean  out 
the  well  so  that  no  one  else  could  get  typhoid  from 
the  same  source.  But  if  a  lawyer  were  called  on  to 
treat  a  typhoid  patient,  he  would  give  him  thirty 
days  in  jail,  and  then  he  would  think  that  nobody 
else  would  ever  dare  to  take  it.  If  the  patient  got 
well  in  fifteen  days,  he  would  be  kept  until  his  time 
was  up;  if  the  disease  was  worse  at  the  end  of  thirty 
days,  the  patient  would  be  released  because  his  time 
was  out.     As  a  rule,   lawyers  are  not  scientists. 

Still,  we  are  making  some  progress.  Courts  give 
attention  to  some  things  that  they  did  not  give  at- 
tention to  before.  Once  in  England  they  hanged 
children  seven  years  of  age;  not  necessarily  hanged 
them,  because  hanging  was  never  meant  for  punish- 

196 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

ment;  it  was  meant  for  an  exhibition.  If  somebody 
committed  a  crime,  he  would  be  hanged  by  the  head 
or  the  heels,  it  didn't  matter  much  which,  at  the  four 
crossroads,  so  that  everybody  could  look  at  him 
until  his  bones  were  bare. 

Hanging  was  not  necessarily  meant  for  punish- 
ment. The  culprit  might  be  killed  in  any  other  way, 
and  then  hanged  —  yes.  Hanging  was  an  exhibi- 
tion. They  were  hanged  on  the  highest  hill,  and 
hanged  at  the  crossways,  and  hanged  in  public 
places,  so  that  all  men  could  see,  H  there  is  any 
virtue  in  hanging,  that  was  the  logical  way,  because 
you  cannot  awe  men  into  goodness  unless  they  know 
about  the  hanging.  We  have  not  grown  better  than 
the  ancients.  We  have  grown  more  squeamish;  we 
do  not  like  to  look  at  it;  that  is  all.  They  hanged 
them  at  seven  years;  they  hanged  them  again  at 
eleven  and  fourteen. 

We  have  raised  the  age  of  hanging.  We  have 
raised  it  by  the  humanity  of  courts,  by  the  under- 
standing of  courts,  by  the  progress  in  science  which 
at  last  is  reaching  the  law;  and  of  ninety  men 
hanged  in  lUinois  from  its  beginning,  not  one  single 
person  under  twenty-three  was  ever  hanged  upon  a 
plea  of  guilty  —  not  one. 

First,  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  your  Honor, 
to  the  cases  on  pleas  of  guilty  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 
Back  of  the  year  1896  the  record  does  not  show 
ages.  After  that,  which  is  the  large  part,  probably 
sixty  out  of  ninety  —  all  show  the  age.     Not  the 

197 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

age  at  which  they  are  hanged,  but  the  age  at  the 
time  of  the  verdict  or  sentence. 

The  first  hanging  in  Illinois  —  on  a  plea  of  guilty 
—  was  May  15,  1896,  when  a  young  colored  man,  24 
years  old,  was  sentenced  to  death  by  Judge  Baker. 

Judge  Baker  I  knew  very  well;  a  man  of  ability, 
a  fine  fellow,  but  a  man  of  moods.  I  do  not  know 
whether  the  court  remembers  him;  but  that  was  the 
first  hanging  on  a  plea  of  guilty  to  the  credit  of  any 
man  in  Illinois  —  I  mean  in  Chicago.  I  have  not 
obtained  the  statistics  from  the  rest  of  the  State,  but 
I  am  satisfied  they  are  the  same,  and  that  boy  was 
colored,  and  twenty-four,  either  one  of  which  should 
have  saved  him  from  death,  but  the  color  probably 
had  something  to  do  with  compassing  his  destruc- 
tion. 

The  next  was  Julius  Mannow.  Now,  he  really 
was  not  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  though  the 
records  so  show.  I  will  state  to  your  Honor  just 
what  the  facts  are.  Joseph  Windreth  and  Julius 
Mannow  were  tried  together  in  1896  on  a  charge 
of  murder  with  robbery.  When  the  trial  was  nearly 
finished,  Julius  Mannow  withdrew  his  plea  of  guilty. 
He  was  defended  by  Elliott,  whom  I  remember  very 
well,  and  probably  your  Honor  does.  And  under 
what  he  supposed  was  an  agreement  with  the  court 
he  plead  this  man  guilty,  after  the  case  was  nearly 
finished. 

Now,  I  am  not  here  to  discuss  whether  there  was 
an  agreement  or  not.    Judge  Horton,  who  tried  this 

198 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

case,  did  not  sentence  him,  but  he  waited  for  the 
jury's  verdict  on  Windreth,  and  they  found  him 
guilty  and  sentenced  him  to  death,  and  Judge 
Horton  followed  that  sentence.  Had  this  case  come 
into  that  court  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  it  probably 
would  have  been  different;  perhaps  not;  but  it 
really  was  not  a  question  of  a  plea  of  guilty;  and 
he  was  twenty-eight  or  thirty  years  old. 

I  might  say  in  passing  as  to  Judge  Horton  —  he 
is  dead.  I  knew  him  very  well.  In  some  ways  I 
liked  him.  I  tried  a  case  for  him  after  he  had  left 
the  bench.  But  I  will  say  this:  he  was  never  noted 
in  Chicago  for  his  kindness  and  his  mercy,  and  any- 
body who  remembers  knows  that  I  am  stating  the 
truth. 

The  next  man  who  was  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty 
was  Daniel  McCarthy,  twenty-nine  years  old,  in 
1897,  by  Judge  Stein.  Well,  he  is  dead.  I  am  very 
careful  about  being  kind  to  the  dead,  so  I  will  say 
that  he  never  knew  what  mercy  was,  at  least  while 
he  lived.  Whether  he  does  now,  I  cannot  say.  Still 
he  was  a  good  lawyer.    That  was  in  1897. 

It  was  twenty-two  years,  your  Honor,  before  any- 
body else  was  hanged  in  Cook  County  on  a  plea  of 
guilty,  old  or  young,  twenty-two  years  before  a 
judge  had  either  the  old  or  young  walk  into  his 
court  and  throw  himself  on  the  mercy  of  the  court 
and  get  the  rope  for  it.  But  twenty-two  years  later, 
in  1 91 9,  Thomas  Fitzgerald,  a  man  about  forty 
years  old,  was  sentenced  for  killing  a  little  girl,  plead 

199 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

guilty  before  my  friend  Judge  Crowe,  and  he  was 
put  to  death.  And  that  is  all.  In  the  history  of 
Cook  County  that  is  all  that  have  been  put  to  death 
on  a  plea  of  guilty.    That  is  all. 

Since  that  time  one  other  man  has  been  sentenced 
to  death  on  a  plea  of  guilty.  That  was  James  H. 
Smith,  twenty-eight  years  old,  sentenced  by  Judge 
Kavanagh.  But  we  were  spared  his  hanging.  That 
was  in  January,  1923.  I  could  tell  you  why  he  was 
sentenced  to  die.  It  was  due  to  the  cruelty  that  has 
paralyzed  the  hearts  of  men  growing  out  of  the 
war.  We  are  accustomed  to  blood,  your  Honor.  It 
used  to  look  mussy,  and  make  us  feel  squeamish. 
But  we  have  not  only  seen  it  shed  in  buckets  full, 
we  have  seen  it  shed  in  rivers,  lakes  and  oceans,  and 
we  have  delighted  in  it;  we  have  preached  it,  we 
have  worked  for  it,  we  have  advised  it,  we  have 
taught  it  to  the  young,  encouraged  the  old,  until 
the  world  has  been  drenched  in  blood,  and  it  has  left 
its  stains  upon  every  human  heart  and  upon  every 
human  mind,  and  has  almost  stifled  the  feelings  of 
pity  and  charity  that  have  their  natural  home  in 
the  human  breast. 

I  do  not  believe  that  Judge  Kavanagh  would  ever 
have  done  this  except  for  the  great  war  which  has 
left  its  mark  on  all  of  us,  one  of  the  terrible  by- 
products of  those  wretched  years.  This  man  was 
reprieved,  but  James  Smith  was  twenty-eight  years 
old;  he  was  old  enough  to  vote,  he  was  old  enough 
to  make  contracts,  he  needed  no  guardian,  he  was 

200 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

old  enough  to  do  all  the  things  that  an  older  man 
can  do.  He  was  not  a  boy;  a  boy  that  is  the  special 
ward  of  the  State,  and  the  special  ward  of  the  court, 
and  who  cannot  act  except  in  special  ways  because 
he  is  not  mature.  He  was  twenty-eight  and  he  is 
not  dead  and  will  not  die.  His  life  was  saved,  and 
you  may  go  over  every  hanging,  and  if  your  Honor 
shall  decorate  the  gallows  with  these  two  boys,  your 
Honor  will  be  the  first  in  Chicago  who  has  ever  done 
such  a  deed.    And  I  know  you  will  not. 

Your  Honor,  I  must  hasten  along,  for  I  will  close 
tonight.  I  know  I  should  have  closed  before.  Still 
there  seems  so  much  that  I  would  like  to  say.  I  will 
spend  a  few  more  minutes  on  this  record  of  hang- 
ings. There  was  one  boy  nineteen  years  old, 
Thomas  Schultz,  who  was  convicted  by  a  jury  and 
executed.  There  was  one  boy  who  has  been  re- 
ferred to  here,  eighteen,  Nicholas  Viani,  who  was 
convicted  by  a  jury  and  executed.  No  one  else 
under  twenty-one,  your  Honor,  has  been  convicted 
by  a  jury  and  executed.  Now,  let  me  speak  a  word 
about  these. 

Schultz  was  convicted  in  19 12  and  hanged.  Of 
course,  I  believe  it  should  not  have  happened,  but 
your  Honor  knows  the  difference  between  a  plea  of 
guilty  and  a  verdict.  It  is  easy  enough  for  a  jury 
to  divide  the  responsibility  by  twelve.  They  have 
not  the  charity  which  comes  from  age  and  expe- 
rience. It  is  easy  for  some  State's  Attorneys  to 
influence  some  juries.    I  don't  know  who  defended 

201 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  poor  boy,  but  I  guarantee  that  it  was  not  the  best 
lawyers  at  the  bar,  but  doubtless  a  good  lawyer 
prosecuted  him,  and  when  he  was  convicted  the 
court  said  that  he  had  rested  his  fate  with  the  jury, 
and  he  would  not  disturb  the  verdict. 

I  do  not  know  whether  your  Honor,  humane  and 
considerate  as  I  believe  you  to  be,  would  have  dis- 
turbed a  jury's  verdict  in  this  case,  but  I  know  that 
no  judge  in  Cook  County  ever  himself  upon  a  plea 
of  guilty  passed  judgment  of  death  in  a  case  below 
the  age  of  twenty-three,  and  only  one  at  the  age  of 
twenty- three  was  ever  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty. 

Viani  I  have  looked  up,  and  I  don't  care  who  did 
it  or  how  it  was  done,  it  was  a  shame  and  disgrace 
that  an  eighteen-year-old  boy  should  be  hanged,  in 
1920,  or  a  nineteen-year-old  boy  should  be  hanged, 
in  1920,  and  I  am  assuming  it  is  all  right  to  hang 
somebody,  which  it  is  not. 

There  were  various  things  working  against  him. 
Most  anything  might  have  happened  after  the  war, 
which  I  will  speak  of  later,  and  not  much  later,  for 
I  am  to  close  tonight.  There  was  a  band  of  Italian 
desperadoes,  so-called.  I  don't  know.  Sam  Car- 
dinelli  was  the  leader,  a  man  forty  years  of  age. 
But  their  records  were  very  bad.  This  boy  should 
have  been  singled  out  from  the  rest.  If  I  had  been 
defending  him,  and  he  had  not  been,  I  never  would 
have  come  into  court  again.  But  he  was  not.  He 
was  tried  with  the  rest.     I  have  looked  up  the 


202 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

records,  and  I  find  that  he  was  in  the  position  of 
most  of  these  unfortunates;  he  did  not  have  a 
lawyer. 

Your  Honor,  the  question  of  whether  a  man  is 
convicted  or  acquitted  does  not  always  depend  on 
the  evidence  or  entirely  on  the  judge  or  the  jury. 
The  lawyer  has  something  to  do  with  it.  And  the 
State  always  has  —  always  has  at  least  moderately 
good  lawyers.  And  the  defendants  have,  if  they  can 
get  the  money;  and  if  they  cannot,  they  have  no- 
body. Ed  Raber,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  prose- 
cuted. He  had  a  fine  chance,  this  poor  Italian  boy, 
tried  with  three  or  four  others.  And  prosecuted  by 
one  of  the  most  relentless  prosecutors  Chicago  has 
ever  known.  This  boy  was  defended  by  somebody 
whose  name  I  never  heard,  who  was  appointed  by 
the  court. 

Your  Honor,  if  in  this  court  a  boy  of  eighteen  and 
a  boy  of  nineteen  should  be  hanged  on  a  plea  of 
guilty,  in  violation  of  every  precedent  of  the  past,  in 
violation  of  the  policy  of  the  law  to  take  care  of  the 
young,  in  violation  of  the  law  that  places  boys  in 
reformatories  instead  of  prisons,  if  your  Honor  in 
violation  of  all  that  and  in  the  face  of  all  the  past 
should  stand  here  in  Chicago  alone  to  hang  a  boy 
on  a  plea  of  guilty,  then  we  are  turning  our  faces 
backward  toward  the  barbarism  which  once  pos- 
sessed the  world.  If  your  Honor  can  hang  a  boy  at 
eighteen,  some  other  judge  can  hang  him  at  seven- 


J03 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

teen,  or  sixteen,  or  fourteen.  Some  day,  if  there  is 
any  such  thing  as  progress  in  the  world,  if  there  is 
any  spirit  of  humanity  that  is  working  in  the  hearts 
of  men,  some  day  men  would  look  back  upon  this  as 
a  barbarous  age  which  deliberately  set  itself  in  the 
way  of  progress,  humanity  and  sympathy,  and  com- 
mitted an  unforgivable  act. 

Yet  your  Honor  has  been  asked  to  hang,  and  I 
must  refer  here  for  a  minute  to  something  which  I 
dislike  to  discuss.  I  hesitated  whether  to  pass  it  by 
unnoticed  or  to  speak  of  it,  but  feel  that  I  must  say 
something  about  it,  and  that  was  the  testimony  of 
Gortland,  the  policeman.  He  came  into  this  court, 
the  only  witness  who  said  that  young  Leopold  told 
him  that  he  might  get  into  the  hands  of  a  friendly 
judge  and  succeed.  Your  Honor,  that  is  a  blow 
below  the  belt.  There  isn't  a  word  of  truth  in  his 
statement,  as  I  can  easily  prove  to  your  Honor.  It 
was  carved  out  of  the  air,  to  awe  and  influence  the 
court,  and  place  him  in  a  position  where  if  he  saved 
life  some  one  might  be  malicious  enough  to  say  that 
he  was  a  friendly  judge,  and,  if  he  took  it,  the  fear 
might  invade  the  community  that  he  did  not  dare  to 
be  merciful. 

Now,  let  me  take  Cortland's  testimony  for  a 
minute.  He  swore  that  on  the  night  after  the  arrest 
of  these  two  boys  Nathan  Leopold  told  him,  in  dis- 
cussing the  case,  that  a  friendly  judge  might  save 
him.  He  is  the  first  man  who  testified  for  the  State 
that  any  of  us  cross-examined,  if  you  remember. 

204 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

They  called  witness  after  witness  to  prove  some- 
thing that  did  not  need  to  be  proved  under  a  plea 
of  guilty.  Then  this  came,  which  to  me  was  a 
poisoned  piece  of  perjury,  with  a  purpose,  and  I 
cross-examined  him: 

"  Did  you  make  any  record?  "  "  Yes,  I  think  I 
did." 

"  Where  is  it?  "    "  I  think  I  have  it." 

"  Let  me  see  it." 

There  was  not  a  word  or  a  syllable  upon  that 
paper. 

"  Did  you  make  any  other?  "     "  Yes." 

"  When  did  you  make  it?  "  "  Within  two  or 
three  days  of  the  occurrence." 

"  Let  me  see  that." 

He  said  he  would  bring  it  back  later. 

"  Did  you  make  another?  "    "  Yes." 

"  What  was  it?  "  "  A  complete  report  to  the 
chief  of  police." 

"  Is  it  in  there?  "     "  I  think  so." 

"  Will  you  bring  that?  "    "  Yes." 

He  brought  them  both  into  this  court.  They  con- 
tained, all  these  reports,  a  complete  or  almost  a 
complete  copy  of  everything  that  happened,  but  not 
one  word  on  this  subject.  He  deliberately  said  that 
he  made  that  record  within  a  few  days  of  the  time  it 
occurred,  and  that  he  told  the  office  about  it  within 
a  few  days  of  the  time  it  occurred.  And  then  what 
did  he  say?  Then  he  came  back  in  answer  to  my 
cross-examination,    and   said    that    he    never    told 

205 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Judge  Crowe  about  it  until  the  night  before  Judge 
Crowe  made  his  opening  statement  in  this  case.  Six 
weeks  after  he  heard  it,  long  after  the  time  he  said 
that  he  made  a  record  of  it,  and  there  was  not  a 
single  word  or  syllable  about  this  matter  in  any 
report  he  made. 

I  am  sorry  to  discuss  it;  I  am  sorry  to  embarrass 
this  court,  but  what  can  I  do?  I  want  your  Honor 
to  know  that  if  in  your  judgment  you  think  these 
boys  should  hang,  we  will  know  it  is  your  judgment. 
It  is  hard  enough,  for  a  court  to  sit  where  you  sit, 
with  the  eyes  of  the  world  upon  you,  in  the  fierce 
heat  of  public  opinion,  for  and  against.  It  is  hard 
enough,  without  any  lawyer  making  it  harder.  I 
assure  you  it  is  with  deep  regret  that  I  even  mention 
the  evidence,  and  I  will  say  no  more  about  it,  ex- 
cepting that  this  statement  was  deliberately  false, 
and  his  own  evidence  shows  it. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  have  spoken  about  the  war. 
I  believed  in  it.  I  don't  know  whether  I  was  crazy 
or  not.  Sometimes  I  think  perhaps  I  was.  I  joined 
in  the  general  cry.  I  urged  men  to  fight,  I  was 
safe  because  I  was  too  old  to  go.  For  four  long 
years  the  civilized  world  was  engaged  in  killing  men. 
Christian  against  Christian,  barbarians  uniting  with 
Christians  to  kill  Christians;  anything  to  kill.  It 
was  taught  in  every  school,  aye  in  the  Sunday 
schools.  The  little  children  played  at  war.  Do  you 
suppose  this  world  has  ever  been  the  same  since 
then?    How  long,  your  Honor,  will  it  take  for  the 

206 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

world  to  get  back  the  humane  emotions  that  were 
slowly  growing  before  the  war?  We  read  of  killing 
one  hundred  thousand  men  in  a  day.  We  read  about 
it  and  we  rejoiced  in  it  —  if  it  was  the  other  fellows 
who  were  killed.  We  were  fed  on  flesh  and  drank 
blood.  Even  down  to  the  prattling  babe.  I  need 
not  tell  your  Honor  this,  because  you  know;  I  need 
not  tell  you  how  many  upright,  honorable  young 
boys  have  come  into  this  court  charged  with  murder, 
boys  who  fought  in  this  war  and  learned  to  place  a 
cheap  value  on  human  life.  You  know  it  and  I 
know  it.  These  boys  were  brought  up  in  it.  The 
tales  of  death  were  in  their  homes,  their  play- 
grounds, their  schools;  they  were  in  the  newspapers 
that  they  read;  it  was  a  part  of  the  common 
frenzy  —  what  was  a  life?  It  was  nothing.  It  was 
the  least  sacred  thing  in  existence  and  these  boys 
were  trained  to  this  cruelty. 

It  will  take  fifty  years  to  wipe  it  out  of  the  human 
heart,  if  ever.  No  one  needs  to  tell  me  that  crime 
has  no  cause.  It  has  as  definite  a  cause  as  any 
other  disease,  and  I  know  that  out  of  the  hatred  and 
bitterness  of  the  Civil  War  crime  increased  as  Amer- 
ica had  never  known  it  before.  I  know  that  grow- 
ing out  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  there  was  an  era  of 
crime  such  as  Europe  had  never  seen  before.  I 
know  that  Europe  is  going  through  the  same  expe- 
rience today;  I  know  it  has  followed  every  war;  and 
I  know  it  has  influenced  these  boys  so  that  life  was 
not  the  same  to  them  as  it  would  have  been  if  the 

207 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

world  had  not  been  made  red  with  blood.  I  pro- 
test against  visiting  upon  them  the  crimes  and  mis- 
takes of  society.  All  of  us  have  our  share  in  it. 
I  have  mine.  I  cannot  tell  and  I  shall  never  know 
how  many  words  of  mine  might  have  given  birth 
to  cruelty  in  place  of  love  and  kindness  and  char- 
ity. 

Your  Honor  knows  that  in  this  very  court  crimes 
of  violence  have  increased  growing  out  of  the  war. 
Not  necessarily  by  those  who  fought  but  by  those 
that  learned  that  blood  was  cheap,  and  human  life 
was  cheap,  and  if  the  State  could  take  it  lightly  why 
not  the  boy?  There  are  causes  for  this  terrible 
crime.  There  are  causes,  as  I  have  said,  for  every- 
thing that  happens  in  the  world.  War  is  a  part 
of  it;  education  is  a  part  of  it;  birth  is  a  part  of  it; 
money  is  a  part  of  it  —  all  these  conspired  to  com- 
pass the  destruction  of  these  boys. 

Has  the  court  any  right  to  consider  anything  but 
these  two  boys?  The  State  says  that  your  Honor 
has  a  right  to  consider  the  welfare  of  the  com- 
munity, as  you  have.  If  the  welfare  of  the  com- 
munity would  be  benefited  by  taking  these  lives, 
well  and  good.  I  think  it  would  work  evil  that  no 
one  could  measure.  Has  your  Honor  a  right  to  con- 
sider the  families  of  these  two  defendants?  I  have 
been  sorry,  and  I  am  sorry  for  the  bereavement  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Franks,  for  those  broken  ties  that 
cannot  be  healed.  All  I  can  hope  and  wish  is  that 
some  good  may  come  from  it  all.    But  as  compared 

208 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

with  the  families  of  Leopold  and  Loeb,  the  Franks 
are  to  be  envied  —  and  everyone  knows  it. 

I  do  not  know  how  much  salvage  there  is  in  these 
two  boys.  I  hate  to  say  it  in  their  presence,  but 
what  is  there  to  look  forward  to?  I  do  not  know 
but  what  your  Honor  would  be  merciful  if  you  tied 
a  rope  around  their  necks  and  let  them  die;  merciful 
to  them,  but  not  merciful  to  civilization,  and  not 
merciful  to  those  who  would  be  left  behind.  To 
spend  the  balance  of  their  days  in  prison  is  mighty 
little  to  look  forward  to,  if  anything.  Is  it  any- 
thing? They  may  have  the  hope  that  as  the  years 
roll  around  they  might  be  released.  I  do  not  know. 
I  do  not  know.  I  will  be  honest  with  this  court  as 
I  have  tried  to  be  from  the  beginning.  I  know  that 
these  boys  are  not  fit  to  be  at  large.  I  believe  they 
will  not  be  until  they  pass  through  the  next  stage  of 
life,  at  forty-five  or  fifty.  Whether  they  will  be 
then,  I  cannot  tell.  I  am  sure  of  this:  I  will  not  be 
here  to  help  them.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it  is 
over. 

I  would  not  tell  this  court  that  I  do  not  hope  that 
some  time,  when  life,  age,  has  changed  their  bodies, 
as  it  does,  and  has  changed  their  emotions,  as  it 
does,  that  they  may  once  more  return  to  life.  I 
would  be  the  last  person  on  earth  to  close  the  door 
of  hope  to  any  human  being  that  lives,  and  least  of 
all  to  my  clients.  But  what  have  they  to  look  for- 
ward to?  Nothing.  And  I  think  here  of  the  stanza 
of  Housman: 

209 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now  hollow  fires  burn  out  to  black, 

And  lights  are  fluttering  low: 
Square  your  shoulders,  lift  your  pack 

And  leave  your  friends  and  go. 
O  never  fear,  lads,  naught's  to  dread, 

Look  not  left  nor  right: 
In  all  the  endless  road  you  tread 

There's  nothing  but  the  night. 


I  care  not,  your  Honor,  whether  the  march  begins 
at  the  gallows  or  when  the  gates  of  Joliet  close  upon 
them,  there  is  nothing  but  the  night,  and  that  is 
little  for  any  human  being  to  expect. 

But  there  are  others  to  consider.  Here  are  these 
two  families,  who  have  led  honest  lives,  who  will 
bear  the  name  that  they  bear,  and  future  genera- 
tions must  carry  it  on. 

Here  is  Leopold's  father  —  and  this  boy  was  the 
pride  of  his  life.  He  watched  him,  he  cared  for  him, 
he  worked  for  him;  the  boy  was  brilliant  and  ac- 
complished, he  educated  him,  and  he  thought  that 
fame  and  position  awaited  him,  as  it  should  have. 
It  is  a  hard  thing  for  a  father  to  see  his  life's  hopes 
crumble  into  dust. 

Should,  he  be  considered?  Should  his  brothers  be 
considered?  Will  it  do  society  any  good  or  make 
your  life  safer,  or  any  human  being's  life  safer,  if 
it  should  be  handed  down  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, that  this  boy,  their  kin,  died  upon  the  scaf- 
fold? 

And  Loeb's  the  same.    Here  are  the  faithful  uncle 

2IO 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  brother,  who  have  watched  here  day  by  day, 
while  Dickie's  father  and  his  mother  are  too  ill  to 
stand  this  terrific  strain,  and  shall  be  waiting  for  a 
message  which  means  more  to  them  than  it  can  mean 
to  you  or  me.  Shall  these  be  taken  into  account  in 
this  general  bereavement?  Have  they  any  rights? 
Is  there  any  reason,  your  Honor,  why  their  proud 
names  and  all  the  future  generations  that  bear  them 
shall  have  this  bar  sinister  written  across  them? 
How  many  boys  and  girls,  how  many  unborn  chil- 
dren will  feel  it?  It  is  bad  enough  as  it  is,  God 
knows.  It  is  bad  enough,  however  it  is.  But  it's 
not  yet  death  on  the  scaffold.  It's  not  that.  And 
I  ask  your  Honor,  to  save  two  honorable  fami- 
lies from  a  disgrace  that  never  ends,  and  which 
could  be  of  no  avail  to  help  any  human  being  that 
lives. 

Now,  I  must  say  a  word  more  and  then  I  will 
leave  this  with  you  where  I  should  have  left  it  long 
ago.  None  of  us  are  unmindful  of  the  public; 
courts  are  not,  and  juries  are  not.  We  placed  our 
fate  in  the  hands  of  a  trained  court,  thinking  that 
he  would  be  more  mindful  and  considerate  than  a 
jury.  I  cannot  say  how  people  feel.  I  have  stood 
here  for  three  months  as  one  might  stand  at  the 
ocean  trying  to  sweep  back  the  tide.  I  hope  the 
seas  are  subsiding  and  the  wind  is  falling,  and  I 
believe  they  are,  but  I  wish  to  make  no  false  pre- 
tense to  this  court.  The  easy  thing  and  the  popular 
thing  to  do  is  to  hang  my  clients.    I  know  it.    Men 

211 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  women  who  do  not  think  will  applaud.  The 
cruel  and  thoughtless  will  approve.  It  will  be  easy 
today;  but  in  Chicago,  and  reaching  out  over  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  more  and  more 
fathers  and  mothers,  the  humane,  the  kind  and  the 
hopeful,  who  are  gaining  an  understanding  and  ask- 
ing questions  not  only  about  these  poor  boys,  but 
about  their  own  —  these  will  join  in  no  acclaim  at  the 
death  of  my  clients.  These  would  ask  that  the  shed- 
ding of  blood  be  stopped,  and  that  the  normal  feel- 
ings of  man  resume  their  sway.  And  as  the  days  and 
the  months  and  the  years  go  on,  they  will  ask  it 
more  and  more. 

But,  your  Honor,  what  they  shall  ask  may  not 
count.  I  know  the  easy  way.  I  know  your  Honor 
stands  between  the  future  and  the  past.  I  know  the 
future  is  with  me,  and  what  I  stand  for  here;  not 
merely  for  the  lives  of  these  two  unfortunate  lads, 
but  for  all  boys  and  all  girls;  for  all  of  the  young, 
and  as  far  as  possible,  for  all  of  the  old.  I  am 
pleading  for  life,  understanding,  charity,  kindness, 
and  the  infinite  mercy  that  considers  all.  I  am 
pleading  that  we  overcome  cruelty  with  kindness 
and  hatred  with  love.  I  know  the  future  is  on  my 
side.  You  may  hang  these  boys;  you  may  hang 
them  by  the  neck  until  they  are  dead.  But  in  doing 
it  you  will  turn  your  face  toward  the  past.  In  doing 
it  you  are  making  it  harder  for  every  other  boy  who 
in  ignorance  and  darkness  must  grope  his  way 
through  the  mazes  which  only  childhood  knows.    In 

212 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

doing  it  you  will  make  it  harder  for  unborn  children. 
You  may  save  them  and  make  it  easier  for  every 
child  that  sometime  may  stand  where  these  boys 
stand.  You  will  make  it  easier  for  every  human 
being  with  an  aspiration  and  a  vision  and  a  hope 
and  a  fate.  I  am  pleading  for  the  future;  I  am 
pleading  for  a  time  when  hatred  and  cruelty  will  not 
control  the  hearts  of  men.  When  we  can  learn  by 
reason  and  judgment  and  understanding  and  faith 
that  all  life  is  worth  saving,  and  that  mercy  is  the 
highest  attribute  of  man. 

I  feel  that  I  should  apologize  for  the  length  of 
time  I  have  taken.  This  case  may  not  be  as  im- 
portant as  I  think  it  is,  and  I  am  sure  I  do  not  need 
to  tell  this  court,  or  to  tell  my  friends,  that  I  would 
fight  just  as  hard  for  the  poor  as  for  the  rich.  If  I 
should  succeed  in  saving  these  boys'  lives  and  do 
nothing  for  the  progress  of  the  law,  I  should  feel 
sad,  indeed.  If  I  can  succeed,  my  greatest  reward 
and  my  greatest  hope  will  be  that  I  have  done  some- 
thing for  the  tens  of  thousands  of  other  boys,  for 
the  countless  unfortunates  who  must  tread  the  same 
road  in  blind  childhood  that  these  poor  boys  have 
trod  —  that  I  have  done  something  to  help  human 
understanding,  to  temper  justice  with  mercy,  to 
overcome  hate  with  love. 

I  was  reading  last  night  of  the  aspiration  of  the 
old  Persian  poet,  Omar  Khayyam.  It  appealed  to 
me  as  the  highest  that  I  can  vision.  I  wish  it  were 
in  my  heart,  and  I  wish  it  were  in  the  hearts  of  all: 

213 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

So  I  be  written  in  the  Book  of  Love, 
I  do  not  care  about  that  Book  above. 
Erase  my  name  or  write  it  as  you  will, 
So  I  be  written  in  the  Book  of  Love. 


Speech  of  Benjamin  C.  Bachrach 

May  it  Please  Your  Honor  and  you  Gentle- 
men FOR  the  Prosecution: 

WE  are  approaching  the  close  of  this  momen- 
tous hearing,  and  as  I  address  myself  to 
your  Honor,  I  have  a  feeling  of  humility  and  un- 
worthiness. 

Mr.  Darrow  has  talked  at  length  on  the  one  sub- 
ject, if  your  Honor  please,  that  has  troubled  us  here, 
that  is  a  subject  of  discussion  throughout  the  entire 
world:  What  shall  the  punishment  be?  Shall  it  be 
death,  or  life  imprisonment? 

And,  if  your  Honor  please,  on  the  subject  of  pun- 
ishment, the  subject  that  possesses  your  Honor's 
entire  interest,  you  have  been  listening  to  a  master. 
He  has  told  you,  from  his  reading  and  study,  of  the 
growth  and  development  of  the  ideas  of  punishment, 
from  the  ancient  and  barbarous  past.  Your  Honor 
remembers  his  speaking  of  a  case  in  which  they 
burned  a  girl  thirteen  years  of  age.  Here  are  six 
lines  from  Lawyers'  Reports  Annotated,  mentioning 
this  case.    I  read  from  page  200: 

The  case  of  the  girl  mentioned  was  that  of  Alice 
DeWalborough,  who  Hale  tells  us  (i  Hale,  Pleas,  The 

214 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Crown,  page  26)  was  burned  to  judgment  when  but 
thirteen  years  of  age  for  the  killing  of  her  mistress,  be- 
cause by  the  ancient  law  none  shall  be  hanged  within 
age,  which  is  intended  the  age  of  discretion,  namely, 
fourteen  years. 

The  law  could  not  hang  her  on  account  of  her 
age,  and  so  it  burned  her. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Marshall,  in  the  progress  of  this 
trial  has  read  many  court  decisions  —  none  in  point. 
They  must  have  been  collected  to  read  to  a  jury 
before  whom  he  expected  to  try  this  case.  But  he 
had  them  here  and  read  them  on  objections  to  evi- 
dence, motions  to  exclude  evidence. 

He  contended  that  your  Honor  had  no  right  to 
hear  anything  in  mitigation,  but  should  only  hear 
matters  of  aggravation,  and  having  heard  them  in 
aggravation,  the  mitigation  was  wiped  out;  there- 
fore, you  have  a  simple,  complete  case  which  would 
fit  a  hanging  punishment,  A  wonderful  plan  of 
procedure,  indeed. 

Now,  let  me  show  you  something.  Mr.  Marshall 
read  from  Haensel,  an  Illinois  case,  293.  He 
pointed  that  out  as  a  case  which  should  convince 
your  Honor  that  there  is  no  merit  in  our  position 
that  the  defendants  at  the  bar  should  not  be 
executed. 

The  plaintiff  in  error  met  his  wife,  stuck  a  gun  against 
her  chest,  demanded  some  papers,  struck  his  mother-in- 
law  in  the  head  with  a  pair  of  pliers,  and  as  she  ran 
back  in  the  bedroom  fired  a  shot,  which  passed  through 
the  right  side  of  her  chest. 

215 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

He  followed  her,  a  number  of  shots  were  fired,  and 
it  was  an  insanity  defense,  the  man  was  convicted, 
and  so  forth.  Mr.  Marshall  makes  the  comment 
that  this  man  was  in  bad  shape.  He  had  syphilis, 
goiter,  vertigo,  and  had  been  struck  in  the  head.  He 
had  army  service.  There  was  some  excuse  for  him. 
He  was  a  sick  man  on  all  the  showing  made. 

And  then  he  goes  on:  "  There  were  no  phantasies, 
there  were  no  delusions,  there  were  no  hallucina- 
tions, but  something  of  substance." 

And  after  being  here  four  weeks!  How  could  he 
help  you?  What  is  the  use?  It  can  make  no  im- 
pression on  him.  Are  delusions  not  matters  of  sub- 
stance as  far  as  mentality  is  concerned?  Isn't  that 
the  last?     Doesn't  it  mean  anything  to  him? 

Undoubtedly  what  he  says  is  the  foreword  of  what 
is  going  to  be  said  by  the  State's  Attorney.  He  will 
say  it  is  all  piffle.  Teddy  bears,  phantasies,  we  all 
have  phantasies,  everybody  has  phantasies,  even  Dr. 
Patrick.    "  I  had  phantasies,"  he  said. 

In  this  case  we  were  not  worried  about  Dr. 
Patrick's  phantasies.  Dr.  Patrick  is  beyond  the 
adolescent  period,  the  period  of  puberty.  I  don't 
know  what  his  phantasies  were  then,  but  the  kind  of 
phantasies  he  has  now,  getting  along  as  well  as  he 
does,  won't  do  him  any  harm. 

Considerable  has  been  said,  your  Honor,  about 
the  inability  of  the  State's  alienists  to  come  to  a  just 
conclusion  from  their  examination.  It  is  claimed 
they  made  an  examination.     To  repeat  what  has 

216 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

been  said,  Dr.  Krohn  is  the  only  one  that  was  well 
satisfied  with  the  conditions  under  which  that  ex- 
amination was  made. 

Your  Honor  will  remember  that  the  most  loqua- 
cious of  the  psychiatrists  for  the  State  was  Dr. 
Krohn.  You  remember  my  asking  him  as  to  deal- 
ing with  each  of  the  boys.  I  call  them  boys,  your 
Honor,  for  they  are  below  twenty-one  years  of  age. 
I  do  not  call  them  boys  to  deceive  your  Honor. 
Your  Honor  knows  just  how  old  they  are,  how  old 
or  how  young  they  look. 

I  asked  Krohn  questions  as  to  what  he  discovered 
in  that  examination.  He  said,  first,  the  senses  were 
all  right;  the  logical  reasoning  was  all  right;  the 
logical  sequence  was  all  right;  there  was  a  flowing 
stream  of  thought,  a  continuity  of  thought;  and  a 
perfect  orientation  as  to  time,  place  and  social  re- 
lations. It  sounds  all  right,  intelligent,  and  looks  as 
if  we  were  getting  somewhere.  But  it  appears,  then, 
that  all  of  those  things  are  positively  consistent  with 
a  psychopathic  personality. 

When  he  found  those  things  there,  he  had  not 
been  shown  any  evidence  of  mental  disease. 
Neither  had  any  of  the  other  psychiatrists. 

And  at  six-thirty  o'clock,  may  it  please  your 
Honor,  on  Sunday,  June  ist,  if  I  may  talk  figura- 
tively, the  clerk  of  the  court  called  mental  disease 
three  times  in  stentorian  tones,  and  a  forfeiture  was 
declared.  They  had  not  shown  the  alienists  of  the 
State  that  they  had  mental  disease.    Of  course,  they 

217 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

did  not  try.  Their  souls  were  stripped  bare,  so  they 
say,  but  because  they  did  not  show  them,  that  was 
their  conclusion,  and  they  worded  it  carefully. 

Dr.  Patrick  was  the  first  one.  He  said,  "  There 
was  no  evidence  of  mental  disease."  He  meant  of 
course  that  he  saw  none;  that  none  had  been  shown 
him. 

Now,  what  was  that  examination?  I  won't  go 
into  a  discussion  as  to  whether  my  friend  Judge 
Crowe  feared  the  boys  had  a  mental  disease  —  and 
I  want  to  say  now  lest  I  forget  it,  that  I  never  saw 
a  case  of  this  importance  so  well  prepared;  and 
where  the  work  was  so  expeditiously  done  as  was 
done  by  Judge  Crowe  in  this  case. 

It  may  be  that  he  feared  that  the  lawyers  who 
might  be  thereafter  retained  would  come  into  the 
court  room  with  the  only  defense  that  he  thought 
was  possible,  and  that  he  was  going  to  forestall 
them.  Maybe  he  thought  that  there  was  no  pos- 
sibility of  their  being  mentally  diseased.  Maybe  he 
was  in  good  faith  on  that,  and  thought  all  that  was 
necessary  to  determine  this  case  was  to  bring  in 
some  good  alienists  and  say:  "Look  them  over, 
doctors.  Are  you  through  now?  Did  you  look? 
Wait,  I  will  have  them  tell  the  story  about  the  mur- 
der, tell  it  in  all  the  details.  Now,  you  take  notes, 
Leopold,  and  when  he  gets  through  you  correct  him 
on  that." 

The  story  goes  along  and  then:  "What  do  you 
say?"    Krohn  tells  the  reporters:  "  Sane."    Krohn 

218 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

knew  what  was  expected  of  him.    His  response  was 
adequate. 

Now,  you  have  heard  a  good  deal  of  criticism  of 
that  examination.  I  have  no  desire  to  overdo  it.  I 
want  to  bring  up  the  point,  what  should  they  have 
done?  Were  they  trying  to  find  out  only  if  the 
senses  were  alert,  if  the  logic  was  good,  if  the  con- 
tinuity of  thought  was  perfect,  if  the  stream  ran 
along,  and  if  the  accused  boys  knew  where  they 
were?  Is  that  enough?  Is  that  the  way  they  find 
out  whether  men  are  insane  or  not? 

How  many  people  in  this  room  are  there  that 
couldn't  have  determined  the  same  identical  things 
in  this  case  that  those  four  alienists  determined  on 
that  day?  The  defendants  have  senses  working. 
They  can  hear.  They  look  at  a  book.  They  read 
it  correctly.  They  talk.  They  move  around  the 
room.  They  don't  seem  to  have  their  feet  clogged 
up.  Their  logic  is  good.  They  argue  with  one  an- 
other. Why,  the  ordinary  person  would  say,  "  Yes, 
they  look  to  be  sane;  they  look  to  be  normal." 

Of  course  they  did.  They  looked  that  way  to 
their  parents,  to  their  brothers.  How  do  we  know 
they  looked  that  way?  Mr.  Crowe  knows  they 
looked  that  way.  He  knows  that  the  father  of 
Leopold,  the  uncle  of  Loeb,  and  the  brother  came 
down  to  see  them  when  they  were  under  investiga- 
tion and  they  told  him  they  felt  it  their  duty  to  co- 
operate with  him  in  every  way.  They  never 
dreamed  what  the  truth  of  this  case  was. 

219 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dr.  White  points  out  that  when  the  child  is  born 
there  is  very  little  intelligence,  but  the  emotions  are 
working.  The  child  is  hungry.  A  noise  affects  it. 
It  has  a  feeling  of  discomfort,  warmth  or  cold,  which 
it  expresses  by  cries.  There  is  a  reaction.  The 
child  in  its  primitive  emotion  takes  the  food  that  is 
given  it.  The  child  is  not  concerned  with  determin- 
ing who  pays  for  that  food,  whether  it  is  honestly 
come  by  or  not,,  whether  the  person  who  got  it  com- 
mitted crimes  for  it.  The  intelligence  grows,  and 
the  emotional  side  grows,  and  at  an  early  period  of 
life  impressions  are  given  to  the  child. 

But  if  it  does  not  happen,  your  Honor,  that  the 
emotional  side  of  the  child  grows  in  parallel  lines 
with  the  intellectual  side,  there  will  be  the  same  diffi- 
culty in  the  mind  of  the  child  as  there  would  be  in 
the  physical  body  if  one  arm  grew  regularly  and  the 
other  was  only  half  length.  In  that  case  it  would  be 
a  physical  cripple,  and  the  child  with  a  mind  that 
did  not  grow  along  parallel  lines,  on  the  intellectual 
side  and  the  emotional  side,  would  be  an  intellectual 
cripple. 

Now,  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  the  crime  itself. 
That  has  been  done  by  Mr.  Darrow.  But,  having 
that  in  mind,  knowing  that  much  of  the  thing,  the 
alienist  talks  to  the  boy  or  man,  whoever  it  is,  hav- 
ing a  clue  of  that  departure  from  the  pattern,  and 
finds  out  if  the  thing  was  an  adequate  emotional 
response  to  a  given  logical  stimulus.  If  it  had  been 
a  crime  of  revenge,  or  passion,  or  something  of  that 

220 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

kind,  it  would  be  easy  to  understand.  But  when 
you  cannot  find  in  the  crime  itself  anything  indi- 
cating what  ordinary,  normal  people  would  under- 
stand as  a  sane  reason,  then  you  have  a  right  to 
suspect  that  there  is  something  wrong.  But  it  is  not 
conclusive  yet. 

Then  they  begin  to  examine,  and,  as  they  did  in 
this  case,  they  get  the  man  to  talk  about  his  likes 
and  his  dislikes,  his  aims,  his  ambitions,  his  child 
life,  his  dreams,  night  dreams  and  daydreams,  and 
the  good  doctor,  and  all  of  them  told  you,  that  the 
phantasies  or  daydreams  were  the  things  that  the 
child  had  which  compensated  him  for  his  disap- 
pointments in  his  daily  facing  the  situations  in  life. 

They  compensated  him.  How?  Because  if  he 
was  normal  he  would  have  daydreams  that  would 
express  his  wish  fulfillment,  and  they  would  be 
things  that  would  be  present  to  him  along  natural, 
normal  lines. 

If  there  was  a  discrepancy  between  the  emo- 
tional life  and  his  intellectual  life,  you  might  find 
in  those  phantasies  a  clue,  and  if  you  found  morbid 
phantasies,  diseased  phantasies,  and  if  you  further 
found  that  they  persisted  for  a  long,  long  time  and 
finally  were  projected  into  reality,  you  would  begin 
to  get  on  warm  stuff. 

But  it  may  be  said  in  reply  that  these  things 
could  be  invented,  the  phantasies,  their  operation, 
their  application.  Fortunately,  if  your  Honor 
please,  as  to  the  phantasies  of  Dickie  Loeb,  you  re- 

221 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

ceived  evidence  of  them  from  the  State's  Attorney 
before  any  designing  person  could  have  had  the 
slightest  opportunity  of  talking  with  him.  As  to 
the  delusions  of  Leopold  as  a  suf)erman,  and  of 
Dickie  Loeb  as  a  superman,  we  get  evidence  that 
dates  back  long  prior  to  the  commission  of  the 
crime. 

Your  Honor  will  remember,  if  it  is  necessary  to 
recall  it,  that  when  the  argument  occurred  in  the 
office  of  the  State's  Attorney  on  that  notable  Sun- 
day of  June  1, 1924,  an  argument  between  Dick  Loeb 
and  Babe  Leopold  —  that  is  what  the  State's  At- 
torney was  calling  them  —  in  which  Leopold  tried 
to  convince  the  State's  Attorney  that  it  was  Loeb 
who  struck  the  blows  with  the  chisel  and  sat  in  the 
rear  seat  of  the  car,  in  order  to  prove  it,  he  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Richard  Loeb  was  reading 
detective  stories,  playing  detective,  and  had  no- 
tions of  being  a  criminal,  a  Master  Criminal  and 
so  forth. 

Your  Honor  will  remember  the  letter  dated 
October  9  from  Leopold  to  Loeb.  On  the  next  day, 
after  receiving  a  reply  to  this  letter,  Leopold  again 
wrote  to  Loeb  as  follows: 

October  10,  20th  Century  Limited,  1:45  ^•^^ 

Dear  Dick:  I  want  to  thank  you  first  of  all  for  your 
kindness  in  granting  my  request  of  yesterday.  I  was 
highly  gratified  to  hear  from  you  for  two  reasons,  the 
first  sentimental  and  the  second  practical.     The  first 

222 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

of  these  is  that  your  prompt  reply  conclusively  proved 
my  previous  idea  that  the  whole  matter  really  did  mean 
something  to  you,  and  that  you  respected  my  wishes, 
even  though  we  were  not  very  friendly.  This  is  a  great 
satisfaction,  but  the  second  is  even  greater,  in  that  I 
imply  from  the  general  tenor  of  your  letter  that  there 
is  a  good  chance  of  a  reconciliation  between  us,  which  I 
ardently  desire,  and  this  belief  will  give  me  that  peace 
of  mind  on  which  I  based  my  request. 

But  I  fear,  Dick,  that  your  letter  has  failed  to  settle 
the  controversy  itself,  as  two  points  are  still  left  open. 
These  I  will  not  attack.  As  I  wrote  you  yesterday,  the 
decision  of  our  relations  was  in  your  hands,  because  it 
depended  entirely  on  how  you  wished  tol  treat  my  refusal 
to  admit  that  I  acted  wrongly.  This  request  you  do  not 
answer.  You  imply  merely  that  because  of  my  state- 
ment that  '  I  regret  the  whole  matter  '  I  am  in  part  at 
least  admitting  what  you  desire.  I  thought  twice  before 
putting  that  phrase  in  my  letter,  for  fear  you  might 
misconstrue  it,  as  in  fact  you  have  done.  First,  you 
will  note  that  I  said  that  '  I  regret  the  whole  matter ' 
(not  any  single  part  of  it).  By  this  I  meant  that  I 
regretted  the  crime  you  originally  committed  (your 
mistake  in  judgment)  from  which  the  whole  consequences 
flow.  But  I  did  not  mean  and  do  not  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  meaning  that  once  this  act  had  been  done,  I 
regret  anything  subsequent.  I  do  not  in  fact  regret  it, 
iDecause  I  feel  sure,  as  I  felt  from  the  beginning,  that 
should  we  again  become  friends,  it  will  be  on  a  basis  of 
better  mutual  understanding  as  deliberately  planned  and 
precipitated.  Further,  even  if  I  did  regret  those  con- 
sequences, it  would  not  follow  at  all  that  I  consider 
myself  to  have  acted  wrongly.  I  may  regret  that  it  is 
necessary  to  go  downtown  to  the  dentist,  and  still  not 
feel  that  I  am  acting  wrongly  in  so  doing.     Quite  the 

223 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

contrary.  So  if  you  insist  on  my  stating  that  I  acted 
wrongly,  as  a  prerequisite  to  our  renewal  of  friendship, 
I  feel  in  duty  bound  to  point  out  to  you  that  this  is 
not  the  meaning  of  what  I  wrote.  In  this  do  not  think 
that  I  am  trying  to  avoid  a  renewal  of  these  relations. 
You  know  how  much  I  desire  a  renewal  but  I  still  feel 
that  I  must  point  this  out  to  you,  as  I  could  not  con- 
sider re-entering  those  relations  when  you  were  under  the 
misapprehension  that  I  had  conceded  to  what  you  de- 
manded. On  the  basis  of  this  construction  of  my  words, 
then,  Dick,  should  you  base  your  decision.  Next  comes 
the  other  point  of  issue,  namely,  whether  I  wish  to  be 
a  party  to  a  reconciliation,  supposing  that  you  wish  on 
the  basis  of  the  previous  statements  to  do  so.  Here  the 
decision  rests,  not  with  you,  but  with  me.  Now,  as  I 
wrote  you  yesterday,  you  obviated  my  first  reason  for 
a  refusal  by  telling  me  what  I  wanted  to  know,  but  an- 
other arose,  the  question  of  treachery,  and  that  is  not 
quite  settled  in  my  mind.  For  the  purpose  of  this  dis- 
cussion, I  shall  not  use  the  short  term  '  treachery  '  as 
you  suggested  in  your  letter,  to  cover  whatever  you 
want  to  call  it.  I  have  no  desire  to  quibble  over  terms, 
and  am  sure  we  both  mean  the  same  thing  as  treachery. 
Very  well.  The  whole  question  must  be  divided  into 
two,  namely,  treachery  in  act  and  treachery  in  intention. 
On  your  suggestion,  the  first  was  to  be  settled  by  phon- 
ing Dick,  as  I  did,  I  apologizing  verbally  on  condition 
that  you  were  right,  and  implying  the  same  apology  from 
you  in  case  you  were  wrong. 

You  were  proved  wrong,  and  I  am  sure  you  are  a  good 
enough  sport  to  stick  by  your  statement,  unless  you  ques- 
tion whether  I  did  all  you  suggested  in  good  faith. 
Hence,  you  remove  any  previous  charge  of  treachery  in 
act.  If  there  was  such.  But  the  second  is  not  so  sim- 
ple.   I  stated,  and  still  hold,  that  if  you  still  held  me 

224 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  have  acted  treacherously  in  intent,  our  friendship  must 
cease.  You  circumvent  that  by  saying  you  never  could 
have  held  this  opinion  because  you  believe  me  to  have 
acted  hastily,  etc.  I  did  my  best  in  stating  that  I  was 
wholly  responsible  for  all  I  said  and  did,  since  I  had 
planned  it  all,  and  if  there  were  malice  at  all  it  would 
be  malice  aforethought.  You  refuse  to  believe  me. 
Now,  that  is  not  my  fault.  I  have  done  my  best  to  tell 
you  the  true  facts,  (since  they  were  in  my  disadvantage) 
and  hence  have  discharged  my  obligation.  I  still  insist 
that  I  have  planned  all  I  did.  You  can  believe  this  or 
not  as  you  like  or  come  to  your  own  decision,  on  whether 
you  still  think  I  acted  treacherously.  If  you  say  you 
do  not,  then  I  shall  infer  either  that  you  never  thought 
so  (although  you  accuse  me  of  it)  or  that  you  have 
changed  your  mind  (and  imply  these  as  an  apology  for 
ever  thinking  so)  and  continue  to  be  your  friend.  All 
I  want  from  you  then  is  a  statement  that  you  do  not 
now  think  me  to  have  acted  treacherously  in  intent, 
which  I  will  construe  as  above.  Then  it  is  up  to  you 
whether  you  will  forego  my  statement  of  wrong  action  or 
will  on  your  part  break  up  our  friendship.  Please  wire 
me  at  my  expense  to  the  Biltmore  Hotel,  New  York, 
immediately  on  receipt,  stating,  one,  whether  you  wish  to 
break  our  friendship  or  to  forego  my  statement,  or,  two, 
whether  or  not  you  still  think  me  to  have  acted  treacher- 
ously. If  you  want  further  discussion  on  either  point 
merely  wire  me  that  you  must  see  me  to  discuss  it  before 
you  decide.  Now,  that  is  all  that  is  in  point  to  our  con- 
troversy but  I  am  going  to  add  a  little  more  in  an 
effort  to  explain  my  system  of  a  Nietzschian  philosophy 
with  regard  to  you.  It  may  not  have  occurred  to  you 
why  a  mere  mistake  in  judgment  on  your  part  should  be 
treated  as  a  crime,  when  on  the  part  of  another  it  should 
not  be  so  considered.    Here  are  the  reasons.    In  formu- 

225 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

lating  a  superman,  he  is,  on  account  of  certain  superior 
qualities  inherent  in  him,  exempted  from  the  ordinary 
laws  which  govern  ordinary  men.  He  is  not  liable  for 
anything  he  may  do,  whereas  others  would  be,  except 
for  the  one  crime  that  it  is  possible  for  him  to  commit 
—  to  make  a  mistake. 

Now,  obviously  any  code  which  conferred  upon  an 
individual  or  upon  a  group  extraordinary  privileges  with- 
out also  putting  on  him  extraordinary  responsibility, 
would  be  unfair  and  bad.  Therefore,  an  uebermensch 
is  held  to  have  committed  a  crime  every  time  he  errs  in 
judgment  —  a  mistake  excusable  in  others.  But  you 
may  say  that  you  have  previously  made  mistakes  which 
I  did  not  treat  as  crimes.  This  is  true.  To  cite  an 
example,  the  other  night  you  expressed  the  opinion  and 
insisted  that  Marcus  Aurelius  Antonius  was,  '  practically 
the  founder  of  Stoicism,'  and  in  so  doing  you  committed 
a  crime.  But  it  was  a  slight  crime  and  I  chose  to  forgive 
it.  Similarly  I  have,  and  had  before  this  matter  reached 
the  present  stage,  forgiven  the  crime  which  you  com- 
mitted in  committing  the  error  in  judgment  which  caused 
the  whole  train  of  events.  I  did  not  and  do  not  wish  to 
charge  you  with  a  crime,  but  I  feel  justified  in  using  any 
of  the  consequences  of  your  crime  for  which  you  were 
held  responsible  to  my  advantage.  This  and  only  this 
I  did,  so  you  see  how  careful  you  must  be. 

Now,  Dick,  just  one  more  word  to  sum  up.  Sup- 
posing you  fulfill  both  conditions  necessary  for  our 
reconciliation.  One,  waive  claim  to  my  statement,  and, 
two,  state  yourself  that  you  no  longer  think  me  to  have 
acted  treacherously.  We  are  going  to  be  as  good  or 
better  friends  as  before.  I  wanted  that  to  come  about 
very  much,  but  not  at  the  expense  of  your  thinking  that 
I  have  backed  down  in  any  way  from  my  stand,  as  I  am 
sure  of  that  in  my  mind  and  want  you  to  be. 

226 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Well,  Dick,  the  best  of  luck  if  I  do  not  see  you  again 
and  thanks  in  advance  for  the  wire,  I  am  sure  you  will 
be  good  enough  to  send.  Hoping  you  will  be  able  to 
decide  in  the  way  I  obviously  want, 

I  am, 
Babe. 

It  was  not  fabricated  for  this  case,  was  it?  It 
was  long  before  this  happened.  Can  any  one  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  that  letter  came  from  a  nor- 
mal mind? 

I  have  indicated,  your  Honor,  what  the  examina- 
tion of  the  alienists  for  the  State  brought  forth,  and 
it  was  the  senses,  the  logical  sequence,  orientation, 
the  stream  of  thought  and  continuity  of  thought. 
That  is  the  best,  the  most  positive  statement  that 
came  from  the  alienists  for  the  State. 

Now,  the  alienists  for  the  defense.  I  will  just 
touch  lightly  on  these  things;  your  Honor  will  re- 
member them.  Take  Dickie  Loeb  first.  First,  they 
found  an  abnormal  phantasy  life.  The  substance 
of  the  phantasies  was  peculiar;  it  was  the  phantasy 
of  the  commission  of  a  perfect  crime,  and  about 
being  abused  in  jail.  The  next  one  was  the  pro- 
longation into  adolescence  of  these  infantile  phan- 
tasies.   They  learned  that. 

They  learned  also  that  he  projected  into  the 
world  of  reality  his  phantasy  life  by  endeavoring  to 
conform  conduct  thereto,  such  as  playing  detective, 
playing  gang  leader,  playing  committing  burglary 
as  well  as  the  actual  commission  of  many  crimes  of 

227 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

a  more  or  less  serious  nature.  He  also  projected  the 
phantasy  into  the  world  of  reality  in  the  ride  in  the 
police  car.  He  told  the  reporters  on  that  occasion 
that  he  always  wanted  to  ride  in  a  Marmon,  and  this 
was  his  opportunity.  Of  course,  the  Marmon  meant 
the  police  car.  He  lived  out  his  phantasies  by  his 
life  in  the  jail;  his  satisfaction  in  the  jail  life  and  his 
evident  happiness  that  was  described  by  all  the 
alienists  for  the  defense.  That  is  one  thing;  all 
these  things  I  put  under  one. 

Now,  they  also  discovered  his  criminalistic  ten- 
dencies, or  activity;  the  lying  and  boastfulness,  the 
fainting  spells,  his  infantile  and  twisted  emotional 
development,  making  possible  a  consideration  of  his 
own  brother  and  father  as  possible  victims  of  kid- 
naping. His  pathological  desire  for  sympathy,  his 
pathological  desire  for  power.  All  these  things  a 
real  examination  disclosed. 

More.  The  commission  of  crimes  in  order  to 
have  the  feeling  of  superior  knowledge  over  every 
one  —  you  will  remember  that  in  the  evidence — 
and  mixing  with  a  crowd  to  enjoy  their  evident  con- 
fusion and  ignorance. 

The  interest  in  the  palpitation  of  his  heart.  His 
heart  beat  faster  when  he  was  engaged  in  some 
criminalistic  enterprise. 

He  had  an  inferiority  feeling.  From  early  boy- 
hood he  had  no  opportunity  to  adjust  himself  and 
his  emotions  to  real  life. 


228 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now,  this  sudden  precipitation  of  Dickie  Loeb 
from  early  sheltered  boyhood  into  college  life,  with 
the  influence  of  older  companions  leading  to  drink 
and  sex  temptations  that  they  learned,  that  is  im- 
portant, too.  They  get  all  their  materials  together 
and  then  they  form  a  conclusion. 

The  influence  of  the  nurse  you  have  heard  about. 
The  heightened  feeling  of  inferiority  causing  resort 
to  crime  as  a  method  of  a  compensatory  feeling  of 
power,  you  are  familiar  with  that.  Also  the 
pathological  need  for  "  showing  off  "  before  his  as- 
sociates in  iniquity,  and  his  admitted  inability  to 
commit  crime  without  a  companion  before  whom  to 
demonstrate  his  superiority. 

Then  we  come  to  the  endocrine  disorders,  and 
then  we  come  to  Loeb's  basal  metabolism,  seventeen 
per  cent  minus,  and  the  instability  of  the  nervous 
system.  We  find  the  disparity  between  his  intel- 
lectual precocity  and  his  emotional  retardation, 
which  was  one  of  the  things  that  the  psychiatrists 
were  looking  for.  Then  they  found  his  conduct  in 
connection  with  the  crime  itself;  absence  of  re- 
morse, absence  of  disgust,  absence  of  sympathy, 
absence  of  repulsion.  They  found  his  reaction  to 
Mrs.  Franks'  testimony;  his  reaction  to  the  sug- 
gestion of  murdering  Walter  Bachrach.  They  found 
his  normal  and  customary  behavior  after  the  mur- 
der, the  return  to  routine  existence  after  the  murder 
and  before  apprehension.    He  went  along  in  life  as 


229 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

usual;  there  was  no  difficulty  about  that;  they  took 
all  that  into  consideration.  They  observed  his 
actions  and  attitudes  in  the  court  room. 

The  alienists  for  the  State  observed  them,  too. 
They  saw  that  he  walked  all  right,  that  he  smiled 
a  good  bit;  and  when  Mr.  Crowe  raised  some  kind 
of  a  rumpus,  and  called  attention  to  his  constant 
smiling,  he  changed  it.  The  others  did  not  notice 
that  he  changed  it  at  all.  They  smile  once  in  a 
while,  and  they  do  not  smile,  just  depending  on  how 
they  feel. 

Then  they  learned  from  that  examination  the 
thoughts  and  plans  of  suicide.  They  learned  of  the 
thoughts  of  killing  Babe  and  Dick  Rubel,  and  they 
saw  from  their  experienced  investigation  a  lack  of 
judgment.  This  we  found  corroborated  by  wit- 
nesses who  were  called  by  the  defense. 

They  found  that  he  was  willing  to  die,  that  he 
considered  life  complete,  but  that  if  he  must  go  to 
jail  for  life,  he  would  be  satisfied  if  he  could  obtain 
a  complete  newspaper  file  dealing  with  the  crime  and 
the  trial.    So  much  they  found  out  from  Loeb. 

I  will  go  rapidly  now,  with  reference  to  Leopold. 
They  found  out  something  about  Leopold;  his  sex 
life,  his  early  sex  life.  He  had  some  trouble. 
There  was  a  governess  there.  She  was  not  there  as 
long  as  the  other.  There  were  endocrine  disorders. 
There  was  a  phantasy  life.  There  was  the  king- 
slave  phantasy.  There  was  a  prolongation  of  the 
same  phantasy  over  a  period  of  years. 

230 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

There  was  a  projection  of  phantasies  into  the 
world  at  large,  by  the  search  for  a  superman  whose 
will  should  govern  his  activities.  He  found  him 
eventually  in  Loeb. 

There  was  the  hedonistic  philosophy,  and  the 
superman  idea.  He  had  a  delusion  that  Dick 
measured  up  to  the  test  of  the  superman,  a  delusion 
that  was  serious.  His  letter  of  October  lo,  1923, 
just  read  to  your  Honor,  shows  that.  You  heard  the 
statements  of  the  witnesses  called  by  the  defense. 
He  talked  superman  to  them.  He  argued  in  the 
law  class  that  the  rules  of  law  as  to  torts  and  crimes 
did  not  apply  to  him.  He  said  superman,  but  of 
course  we  all  know  he  meant  himself. 

Then  we  find  that  early  in  life  he  began  a  de- 
liberate, intentional  destruction  of  his  emotional  life. 
He  showed  a  willingness  to  kidnap  his  own  father. 

He  was  conscious  of  setting  out  to  lead  a  purely 
intellectual  life,  going  to  leave  emotions  out  of  it. 
He  used  his  intellectual  precocity  as  a  weapon  with 
which  to  combat  physical  inferiority.  His  interest 
in  religion.  Your  Honor  remembers  the  churches. 
The  idea  his  mother  was  a  Madonna,  his  aunt  was  a 
Madonna.  He  classified  the  churches.  His  Christ 
idea.  His  atheism.  That  was  confirmed  by  his 
mother's  death.  And  then  came  the  tremendous 
disparity  between  his  intellectual  precocity  and  the 
appropriateness  and  adequacy  of  his  emotional 
responses. 

His  idea  of  grandeur  and  comparison  of  himself 
231 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

in  jail  to  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena.  His  illnesses  at 
puberty.  His  lack  of  resistance  to  infection  as  dis- 
closed by  the  examination. 

His  feelings  of  inferiority.  His  small  stature. 
His  attendance  at  the  girls'  school,  being  accom- 
panied to  the  school  by  a  nurse  for  many  years. 
His  projection  into  college  life  at  an  early  age,  with 
the  same  temptations  for  drink  and  sex,  and  the 
need  of  living  up  to  the  standards  of  much  older 
men. 

His  attitude  towards  hanging.  His  readiness,  his 
desire  to  show  consistency.  His  desire  to  leave 
puzzles  for  the  scientists.  His  desire  to  write  an 
apologia.  His  obvious  lack  of  good  judgment, 
which  was  even  apparent  to  his  companions  who 
testified  as  lay  witnesses.  His  willingness  to  sub- 
ject himself  entirely  to  the  hazards  of  a  criminal 
career  in  order  to  obtain  satisfaction  of  his  patho- 
logical needs. 

He  had  a  paranoid  personality.  Loeb  had  a 
schizophrenic  personality.  All  these  things  were 
found  during  a  real  examination  by  our  psychiatrists. 

There  is  no  doubt  he  considered  himself  a  super- 
man. If  that  was  not  a  delusion  and  there  was  that 
in  him  which  justified  him  in  thinking  he  was  a 
superman  through  normal  tests,  what  do  you  think 
about  what  he  did  to  that  superman?  Here  was 
a  superman  in  his  custody.  He  ruined  the  super- 
man by  this  crime. 

Just  one  word  more,  if  your  Honor  please,  and  I 
232 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

am  through.  Here  is  the  State  urging  that  your 
Honor  shall  put  these  two  boys  to  death.  When  the 
State's  Attorney  prepared  his  case  and  presented  it 
to  the  Grand  Jury,  and  presented  the  matters  in  ag- 
gravation to  your  Honor,  he  could  have  very  appro- 
priately and  honorably  stopped,  without  urging  that 
there  should  be  a  maximum  sentence.  But  he  won't. 
He  will  go  on  and  urge  that  your  Honor  ought  to 
hang. 

You  are  listening  for  the  last  time  in  this  case  to 
anybody  on  the  part  of  the  defense,  humbly,  may  it 
please  your  Honor,  frankly  begging  and  pleading 
that  you  let  the  defendants  live  and  not  bring  upon 
their  families  the  great  anxiety,  bitterness  and  suf- 
fering that  their  deaths  upon  the  gallows  would 
bring. 

I  thank  your  Honor  for  your  patience. 


Speech  oj  Robert  E.  Crowe 
May  it  Please  Your  Honor: 

BEFORE  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the  case 
at  bar  I  desire  to  express  our  appreciation  for 
the  uniform  courtesy  and  patience  with  which  your 
Honor  has  treated  me  and  the  representatives  of  my 
office. 

Our  conduct  in  this  case  has  been  criticised  by 
the  defense.  We  ought  not  to  refer  to  two  murder- 
ers who  have  pleaded  guilty  to  two  capital  offenses 

233 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

as  criminals,  nor  to  their  crimes  as  cold-blooded. 
We  have  violated  the  finer  sensibilities  of  their 
counsel. 

These  two  college  graduates  —  the  poor  sons  of 
millionaires  —  are  mere  infants  wandering  around 
in  dreamland.  The  State's  Attorney  should  not  dis- 
cuss the  gruesome  details  of  the  horrible  crime  in 
their  presence.  A  kindly  old  nurse  ought  to  tell 
them  a  bedtime  story.  They  did  not  commit  a  mur- 
der; they  broke  a  jar  of  jam  in  the  pantry.  That 
is  not  blood  on  their  hands;  it  is  jam. 

It  has  been  suggested  also  that  with  the  plea  of 
guilty  entered  the  State  should  say  no  more;  their 
arguments  must  go  without  a  reply.  Put  away  the 
judicial  slipper;  do  not  spank  these  naughty  boys; 
let  them  go  back  to  play.  They  are  not  the  intel- 
lectuals who  say  there  is  no  God.  Oh,  no,  they  still 
believe  in  Santa  Claus. 

Who  but  the  State's  Attorney  could  be  so  vicious 
and  cruel  as  to  talk  about  the  death  penalty  in  a 
case  of  this  sort?  Savage  and  Marshall  should  have 
come  up  here  and  tried  them  with  "  kindness  "  and 
"  consideration." 

I  can  imagine,  your  Honor,  when  this  case  was 
called  for  trial  and  your  Honor  began  to  warn  these 
two  defendants  of  the  consequences  of  their  plea, 
and  when  you  said  we  may  impose  the  death  pen- 
alty. Savage  and  Marshall  both  rushing  up  and 
saying:  "Now,  Judge!  now.  Judge!  not  so  fast! 
We  don't  intend  to  be  cruel  in  this  case.    We  don't 

234 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

intend  to  be  harsh.  We  want  to  try  these  boys, 
these  kiddies,  with  kindness  and  consideration. 
Your  Honor  ought  not  to  shock  their  ears  by  such 
a  cruel  reference  to  the  laws  of  this  State,  to  the 
penalty  of  death.  Why,  don't  you  know  that  one 
of  them  has  to  shave  every  day  of  the  week,  and 
that  is  a  bad  sign?  The  other  one  has  to  shave 
twice  a  week  only,  and  that  is  a  bad  sign.  One  is 
short  and  one  is  tall,  and  it  is  equally  a  bad  sign  in 
both  of  them.  When  they  were  children  they 
played  with  Teddy  bears.  One  of  them  has  three 
moles  on  his  back.  One  is  over-developed  sexually 
and  the  other  not  quite  so  good."  If  one  of  them 
had  a  hairlip  I  suppose  Darrow  would  want  me  to 
apologize  for  having  had  them  indicted. 

Imagine  Savage  and  Marshall  making  a  plea  of 
that  sort  to  your  Honor,  and  saying:  "  Instead  of 
sending  these  two  mad  boys,  who  are  wandering 
around  in  the  dark,  to  prison  for  life,  parole  them 
to  us.  Marshall  will  take  '  Dickie  '  and  Savage  will 
take  '  Babe.'  And  we  will  try  to  get  them  out  of 
this  '  fantasy  life.'  " 

I  know  what  your  Honor  would  have  said  if  they 
had  pursued  that  line  of  conduct.  You  would  have 
said:  "  Mr.  Sheriff,  search  these  men,  find  out  how 
much  money  they  have  in  their  pockets." 

And  if  no  money  were  found  in  their  pockets, 
your  Honor  would  tell  the  sheriff  to  take  them  to 
the  psychopathic  hospital,  and  you  would  send  for 
me  and  say:    "  Crowe,  send  up  somebody  who  has 

2ZS 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

some  brains  to  prosecute  a  murder  case  in  my  court 
room." 

If  we  are  cold-blooded,  we  have,  according  to  Mr. 
Darrow,  planned  for  three  months,  and  conspired 
to  take  the  lives  of  two  little  boys  who  are  wander- 
ing around  in  dreamland.  We  have  been  held  up  to 
the  world  as  men  who  desire  blood,  who  have  no 
kindly  instincts  within  our  hearts  at  all. 

That  is  not  fair  to  Tom  Marshall,  not  fair  to 
Joe  Savage,  both  of  whom  have  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  the  people  of  this  community. 

I  have  never  been  vicious  nor  cruel.  I  believe  in 
God  —  which  may  be  considered  a  fault  in  this 
case  not  only  by  the  two  defendants  but  by  the 
master  pleader  who  represents  them  —  and  I  be- 
lieve in  the  laws  of  this  State.  I  believe  the  State's 
Attorney  is  as  kindly  a  man  as  the  paid  "  humani- 
tarian," who  believes  in  doing  his  fellow  citizens 
good  —  after  he  has  done  them  good  and  plenty. 

I  have  a  right  to  forgive  those  who  trespass 
against  me,  as  I  do,  in  the  hopes  that  I  in  the  here- 
after will  be  forgiven  my  trespasses.  As  a  private 
citizen  I  have  that  right,  and  as  a  private  citizen  I 
live  that  religion.  But,  as  a  public  official,  I  have 
no  right  to  forgive  those  who  violate  their  country's 
laws.    It  is  my  duty  to  prosecute  them. 

Your  Honor  has  a  right  to,  and  I  know  you  do, 
forgive  those  who  trespass  against  John  R.  Caverly. 
But,  sitting  here  as  the  Chief  Justice  of  this  great 
court,  you  have  no  right  to  forgive  anybody  who 

236 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

violates  the  law.  You  have  to  deal  with  him  as  the 
law  prescribes. 

And  I  want  to  say  to  your  Honor,  in  this  case, 
with  the  mass  of  evidence  presented  by  the  State,  if 
a  jury  were  sitting  in  that  box  and  returned  a  ver- 
dict and  did  not  fix  the  punishment  at  death,  every 
person  in  this  community  would  feel  that  that  ver- 
dict was  founded  in  corruption.  And  I  will  tell 
you  why. 

Your  Honor,  I  have  taken  quite  a  trip  during  the 
last  four  or  five  weeks.  I  thought  I  was  going  to 
be  kept  in  Chicago  all  summer  trying  this  case,  and 
that  most  of  my  time  would  be  spent  in  the  Criminal 
Court  Building.  And  I  find  I  have  been  mistaken. 
I  did  come  up  to  your  Honor's  court  room  five  weeks 
ago,  and  after  I  was  there  a  little  while  Old  Doc 
Yak  —  is  that  his  name?  —  the  man  from  Washing- 
ton—  oh.  Dr.  White  —  took  me  by  the  hand  and 
led  me  into  the  nursery  of  two  poor,  rich  young 
boys,  and  he  introduced  me  to  a  Teddy  bear.  Then 
he  told  me  some  bedtime  stories,  and  after  I  got 
through  listening  to  them,  he  took  me  into  the 
kindergarten  and  he  presented  to  me  little  "  Dickie  " 
and  "  Babe,"  and  he  wanted  to  know  if  I  had  any 
objection  to  calling  them  that,  and  I  said  no,  if  he 
had  no  purpose. 

And  after  we  had  wandered  between  the  nursery 
and  the  kindergarten  for  quite  a  while,  I  was  taken 
in  hand  by  the  Bachrach  brothers  and  taken  to  a 
psychopathic  laboratory,  and  there  I  received  quite 

237 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

a  liberal  education  in  mental  diseases,  and  particu- 
larly what  certain  doctors  did  not  know  about  them. 
Three  wise  men  from  the  East  came  to  tell  your 
Honor  about  these  little  babes,  and,  being  three 
wise  men  brought  on  from  the  East,  they  want  to 
make  the  picture  a  little  more  perfect.  One  of  them 
was  sacrilegious  enough  to  say  that  Leopold,  this 
pervert,  this  murderer,  this  kidnaper,  thought  that 
he  was  the  Christ  child  and  his  mother  the  Madonna 
—  and  without  a  syllable  of  evidence  to  support  the 
blasphemous  statement. 

Who  said  that  this  young  pervert  ever  thought  he 
was  the  Christ  child?  He  has  proclaimed  since  he 
was  eleven  years  of  age  that  there  is  no  God.  "  The 
fool  in  his  heart  hath  said  there  is  no  God."  I 
wonder  now,  Nathan,  whether  you  think  there  is  a 
God  or  not.  I  wonder  whether  you  think  it  was 
pure  accident  that  this  disciple  of  Nietzschian 
philosophy  dropped  his  glasses  or  whether  it  was  an 
act  of  Divine  Providence  to  visit  upon  your  miser- 
able carcasses  the  wrath  of  God  in  the  enforcement 
of  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

After  the  Bachrachs  had  completed  my  education 
in  the  psychopathic  laboratories,  then  my  good 
friend  Clarence  Darrow  took  me  on  a  Chautauqua 
trip,  visiting  various  towns.  We  would  go  to  social 
settlements,  such  as  the  Hull  House,  and  Clarence 
would  expound  his  peculiar  philosophy  of  life;  and 
we  would  meet  with  communists  and  anarchists,  and 
Clarence  would  regale  them  with  his  philosophy  of 

238 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  law,  which  means  there  ought  not  to  be  any  law 
and  there  ought  not  to  be  any  enforcement  of  the 
law.  And  he  even  took  me  to  Springfield,  where  he 
argued  before  the  legislature  that  you  ought  to 
abolish  capital  punishment  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 
I  don't  know  whether  the  fact  that  he  had  a  couple 
of  rich  clients  who  were  dangerously  close  to  the 
gallows  prompted  that  trip  or  not.  I  know  when  he 
was  a  member  of  the  legislature  he  did  not  abolish 
capital  punishment  nor  introduce  a  bill  for  that 
purpose. 

Yes,  and  on  this  tour  he  criticised  the  State's 
Attorney  of  this  county  severely  because  he,  in  a 
humane  way,  wanted  to  correct  the  law  so  that  men 
of  this  sort  could  be  dealt  with  before  somebody  lay 
cold  in  death,  and  that  the  children  of  this  com- 
munity might  be  protected. 

When  I  occupied  the  position  that  your  Honor 
now  graces,  I  had  an  unfortunate  man  come  before 
me.  He  was  a  man  of  my  own  race,  of  my  own 
faith.  I  don't  know  whether  his  pineal  gland  was 
calcified  or  ossified.  I  don't  know  whether  he  had 
clubfeet  or  not,  and  I  did  not  inspect  his  back  to 
find  out  whether  he  had  a  couple  of  moles.  I  don't 
know  whether  he  developed  sexually  at  14  or  16. 
I  knew  under  the  law  he  had  committed  a  dastardly 
crime.  He  had  taken  a  little  six-year-old  girl,  a 
daughter  of  the  poor,  and  he  was  a  poor  man,  and 
he  outraged  her  and  he  took  her  into  the  basement 
and  covered  her  over  with  coal.    He  did  not  even 

239 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

have  the  decency  or  the  heart  to  put  a  handkerchief 
over  that  little  dead  face  as  he  heaped  the  coal 
upon  it. 

The  law  says  in  extreme  cases  death  shall  be  the 
penalty.  If  I  were  in  the  legislature  I  might  vote 
against  such  a  law.  I  don't  know.  But  as  a  judge 
I  have  no  right  to  set  aside  that  law.  I  have  no  right 
to  defeat  the  will  of  the  people,  as  expressed  by  the 
legislature  of  Illinois.  I  have  no  right  to  be  a 
judicial  anarchist,  even  if  Clarence  Darrow  is  an 
anarchistic  advocate.  He  says  that  hanging  does 
not  stop  murder.  I  think  he  is  mistaken.  From  the 
time  Thomas  Fitzgerald  expiated  his  crime  upon  the 
gallows,  I  have  not  heard  of  any  little  tot  in  Chicago 
who  met  a  like  fate  to  that  which  Janet  Wilkinson 
met. 

I  will  direct  your  Honor's  attention  to  the  year 
1920,  when  Judge  Kavanagh,  Judge  Brentano, 
Judge  Barrett  and  Judge  Scanlan  came  over  here  at 
my  request  and  from  the  fifth  day  of  May  until  the 
first  day  of  July  tried  nothing  l?ut  murder  cases. 
In  addition  to  the  many  men  that  they  sent  to  the 
penitentiary  for  manslaughter,  or  a  term  of  years 
for  murder,  in  that  brief  period  of  less  than  sixty 
days,  fifteen  men  were  sentenced  to  death  in  the 
Criminal  Court  of  Cook  County.  The  records  of 
the  Police  Department,  the  records  of  the  Chicago 
Crime  Commission  show  that  as  the  result  of  that,, 
murder  fell  51  per  cent  in  Cook  County  during  the 
year  1920. 

240 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

We  had  a  time  here  when  every  night  in  every 
newspaper  there  was  a  column  devoted  to  the  num- 
ber of  automobiles  stolen.  We  established  an  auto- 
mobile court,  and  I  presided  in  it,  and  after  we  had 
sent  several  hundred  to  penal  institutions  for  steal- 
ing automobiles,  the  Rolls-Royce  became  as  safe  as 
the  flivver  on  the  streets  of  Chicago. 

We  had  a  reign  of  terror  inaugurated  here  for 
years  by  criminals  who  dominated  labor  unions. 
They  were  above  and  beyond  the  law.  They 
laughed  at  it,  and  spat  in  its  face,  just  the  same  as 
these  two  poor  young  sons  of  multimillionaires. 
Forty-nine  of  them  were  convicted  in  the  courts  of 
Cook  County.  The  building  industry  that  had  been 
strangled  for  years  began  to  revive  and  take  on  life, 
and  we  have  not  heard  anything  of  the  Maders  or 
the  Murphys  or  the  Walshes  since. 

You  have  heard  a  lot  about  England.  Well,  I 
was  never  very  enthusiastic  about  England  myself. 
That  is  due  to  heredity  in  me.  I  never  had  any 
liking  or  respect  for  her  laws  as  they  applied  to  my 
ancestors  and  people  in  an  adjoining  isle;  but  I  have 
learned  to  have  a  wholesome  respect  for  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  enforce  the  laws  of  England  in 
England.  Murder  is  murder  there;  it  is  not  a 
fantasy.  There,  justice  is  handed  out  swiftly  and 
surely,  and  as  a  result  there  are  less  murders  in  the 
entire  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  yearly  than  there 
are  in  this  city  alone. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  we  have  heard  con- 
241 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

siderable  about  split  personalities  in  this  case.  I 
was  somewhat  surprised  to  find  that  my  old  friend, 
who  has  acted  as  counsel  and  as  nurse  in  this  case 
for  the  two  babes  who  were  wandering  in  dream- 
land, also  was  possessed  of  a  split  personality.  I 
had  heard  so  much  of  the  milk  of  human  kindness 
that  ran  out  in  streams  from  his  large  heart,  that  I 
was  surprised  to  know  he  had  so  much  poison  in  his 
system  also. 

It  is  wrong,  if  your  Honor  please,  for  the  State's 
Attorney  and  his  two  assistants  to  refer  to  these  two 
perverts,  these  two  atheists,  these  two  murderers,  in 
language  that  they  can  understand.  But  it  is  all 
right  for  Mr.  Darrow  to  take  an  honorable  physician, 
and  to  characterize  him,  without  a  shred  of  evidence, 
without  the  slightest  foundation,  as  a  peddler  of  per- 
jury, and  hurl  that  cruel  charge  broadcast  over  this 
land.  Where  is  there  anything  in  this  case  that  war- 
rants Clarence  Darrow  to  make  such  an  infamous 
charge  against  Dr.  Krohn?  I  would  suggest  that  if 
they  want  mercy,  if  they  want  charity,  they  practice 
a  little  bit  of  it. 

Treat  them  with  kindness  and  consideration? 
Call  them  babes?  Call  them  children?  Why,  from 
the  evidence  in  this  case,  if  your  Honor  please,  they 
are  as  much  entitled  to  the  sympathy  and  the  mercy 
of  this  court  as  a  couple  of  rattlesnakes  flushed  with 
venom,  coiled,  ready  to  strike.  They  are  no  good  to 
themselves.  The  only  purpose  for  which  they  are 
of  any  use  is  to  debase  themselves.    They  are  a  dis- 

242 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

grace  to  their  honored  families,  and  they  are  a 
menace  to  this  community.  The  only  useful  thing 
that  remains  for  them  now  is  to  go  out  of  this  life 
and  to  go  out  of  it  as  quickly  as  possible,  under 
the  law. 

As  I  said,  we  have  been  traveling  considerably 
since  this  trial  began.  We  have  been  through  dream- 
land; we  have  been  through  the  nursery.  When  I 
came  into  this  court  I  thought  the  playthings  of 
these  two  perverts  were  bloody  chisels,  ropes,  gags, 
guns  and  acids.  But  one  of  those  wise  men  from 
the  East  told  me  that  I  was  mistaken,  that  their 
play  toys  are  Teddy  bears,  soldiers'  uniforms,  police 
uniforms,  and  the  toys  that  all  healthy-minded 
children  delight  to  play  with. 

We  have  been  in  psychopathic  laboratories;  we 
have  been  in  hospitals;  we  have  been  before  the 
legislature,  and  we  have  been  addressing  meetings  of 
communists  and  expounding  doctrines  that  I  con- 
sider as  dangerous  as  the  crime  itself.  I  think  it  is 
about  time  that  we  get  back  to  the  Criminal  Court. 
I  think  it  is  about  time  that  we  realize  that  we  are 
before  the  Chief  Justice  of  this  court,  that  we  are 
engaged,  not  in  experiments,  not  in  philosophical 
discussions,  but  we  are  back  here  trying  the  murder 
case  of  the  age,  the  details  of  which  fill  with  horror. 

But  Mr.  Darrow  says:  "These  poor  little  sons 
of  multimillionaires.  It  is  their  wealth  that  is  their 
misfortune;  if  it  were  not  for  their  wealth,  there 
would  be  no  interest  in  this  case." 

243 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Yet,  fifty  years  ago  the  Ross  boy  was  kidnaped  — 
not  the  son  of  a  multimillionaire.  He  was  never 
found.  And  yet  we  all,  even  those  of  us  born  many 
years  after,  still  talk  about  the  case  of  Charley  Ross. 
There  is  something  in  the  nature  of  the  crime  itself 
that  arrests  the  attention  of  every  person  in  the 
land.  A  child  is  stolen;  the  heart  of  every  mother, 
the  heart  of  every  father,  the  heart  of  every  man 
who  has  a  heart  goes  out  to  the  parents  of  that  child. 

Bobby  Franks  kidnaped!  When  we  had  not  the 
slightest  information  who  was  guilty  of  the  dastardly 
crime,  the  papers  were  full  of  it.  It  was  the  only 
topic  of  conversation.  It  remained  the  only  topic 
of  conversation  for  a  week  before  the  State's  At- 
torney of  this  county  called  in  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr. 

Their  wealth,  in  my  judgment,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this.  It  permits  a  defense  here  seldom  given 
to  men  in  the  Criminal  Court.  Take  away  the  mil- 
lions of  the  Loebs  and  Leopolds,  and  Clarence 
Darrow's  tongue  is  as  still  as  the  tongue  of  Julius 
Caesar.  Take  away  their  millions,  and  the  wise  men 
from  the  East  would  not  be  here  to  tell  you  about 
fantasies,  Teddy  bears,  and  about  bold  boys  who 
had  their  pictures  taken  in  cowboy  uniform.  Take 
away  their  money,  and  what  happens?  The  same 
as  has  happened  to  all  other  men  who  have  been 
tried  in  this  building  that  had  no  money:  a  plea  of 
guilty;  a  police  officer  sworn;  a  coroner's  physician 
sworn;  the  parents  of  the  murdered  boy  sworn;  a 
sentence. 

244 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

I  used  to  wonder  what  the  poet  Gray  meant  when 
he  talked  about  the  short  and  simple  annals  of  the 
poor.  Clarence  Darrow  once  said  that  the  poor  man 
on  trial  was  usually  disposed  of  in  fifteen  minutes, 
but  if  he  was  rich  and  committed  some  crime,  and 
he  got  a  good  lawyer,  his  trial  would  last  twenty- 
one  days.  Well,  they  have  three  good  lawyers,  and 
it  has  lasted  just  a  little  bit  longer;  and  in  addition 
they  had  three  wise  men  from  the  East. 

Are  we  trying  here,  if  your  Honor  please,  a 
murder  case?  And  what  is  the  evidence  presented 
by  the  State  upon  which  we  ask  the  extreme  penalty? 
A  murder.  Was  it  the  result  of  a  drunken  brawl, 
a  murder  committed  in  hot  blood?  Some  injury, 
real  or  fanciful?  A  man  shooting  down  another  be- 
cause he  debauched  his  wife  and  destroyed  his 
home?    A  murder  the  result  of  impulse  or  passion? 

No;  one  of  the  most  carefully  planned  murders 
that  your  Honor  or  I,  from  all  our  long  experience, 
have  ever  heard  about.  Was  it  a  murder  com- 
mitted by  some  young  gamin  of  the  streets,  whose 
father  was  a  drunkard  and  his  mother  loose,  who 
was  denied  every  opportunity  and  brought  up  in  the 
slums,  never  a  decent  example  set  before  him?  No; 
but  a  murder  committed  by  two  superintellects, 
coming  from  the  members  of  the  most  respected 
families  in  Chicago;  every  advantage  that  love, 
wealth  and  position  could  give  them  was  theirs. 

A  man's  conduct,  I  believe,  your  Honor,  depends 
upon  his  philosophy  of  life.     Those  who  want  to 

245 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

grow  up  to  be  useful  and  respected  citizens  in  the 
community,  have  a  correct  philosophy  of  life. 
Those  who  want  to  excel  in  crime,  those  who  want 
to  tear  down  instead  of  build  up,  select  the  wrong 
philosophy  of  life.  That  is  all  there  is  to  this.  They 
had  the  power  of  choice,  and  they  deliberately  chose 
to  adopt  the  wrong  philosophy  and  to  make  their 
conduct  correspond  with  it. 

These  two  defendants  were  perverts,  Loeb  the 
victim  and  Leopold  the  aggressor,  and  they  quar- 
reled. Then  they  entered  into  a  "  childish  compact," 
Dr.  Healy  says,  so  that  these  unnatural  crimes  might 
continue.  Dr.  Healy  says  that  this  is  a  "  childish 
compact";  and  I  say  if  Dr.  Healy  is  not  ashamed 
of  himself,  he  ought  to  be.  My  God!  I  was  a 
grown  man  before  I  knew  of  such  depravity.  Mr. 
Bachrach  says  that  is  an  evidence  of  insanity.  The 
statute  of  Illinois  says  that  crimes  against  nature 
are  crimes  punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the  peni- 
tentiary.   It  is  not  a  defense  to  a  murder  charge. 

Mitigation!  Mitigation!  I  have  heard  so  many 
big  words  in  this  case  that  I  sometimes  thought 
probably  we  were  letting  error  creep  into  the  record. 
So  many  strange,  foreign  words  have  been  used 
here;  and  the  Constitution  provides  that  the  trial 
must  be  conducted  in  the  English  language.  I 
don't  know;  maybe  I  have  got  aggravation  and 
mitigation  mixed  up. 

It  is  a  mitigating  circumstance,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  when  they  were  outlining  the  plan  of 

246 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

this  conspiracy  and  murder,  they  wanted  to  take  a 
little  girl,  the  daughter  of  the  rich,  and  first  rape 
her  and  then  murder  her,  and  then  collect  the  ran- 
som. If  that  evidence  had  been  put  in  by  the  State, 
I  would  have  thought  it  was  an  aggravation.  These 
three  wise  men,  with  their  distorted  theories,  hired 
by  the  defense,  put  that  evidence  in.  Clarence  Dar- 
row  calls  it  a  mitigating  circumstance.  Why,  when 
they  murder  a  boy,  they  ought  to  be  treated  with 
kindness  and  consideration.  If  they  had  taken  a 
little  girl,  and  debauched  her,  I  suppose  each  would 
have  been  entitled  to  a  medal. 

What  have  we  come  to  in  this  community?  I 
want  to  tell  your  Honor,  bearing  in  mind  the  testi- 
mony that  was  whispered  into  your  ear,  one  of  the 
motives  in  this  case  was  a  desire  to  satisfy  un- 
natural lust.  They  first  wanted  a  little  girl,  so 
Leopold  could  rape  her;  then  they  decided  on  a 
little  boy.  What  happened?  Immediately  upon 
killing  him,  they  took  his  trousers  off.  And  how  do 
you  undress  a  child?  First,  the  little  coat,  the 
collar,  the  tie,  the  shirt,  and  the  last  thing,  the 
trousers.  And  yet  immediately  after  killing  this 
poor  little  boy,  his  trousers  alone  came  off,  and  for 
three  hours  that  little  dead  boy,  with  all  his  other 
clothes  on  him,  remained  in  that  car;  and  they  did 
not  take  the  balance  of  the  clothes  off  until  they 
pulled  the  body  into  the  culvert. 

Away  back  in  November,  if  your  Honor  please, 
when  this  crime  first  began  to  take  the  form  of  a 

247 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

kidnaping  for  ransom,  it  was  necessary  to  write 
some  letters.  These  two  little  boys,  wandering 
around  in  dreamland,  knew  what  very  few  boys 
and  very  few  men  know,  that  it  is  possible  to  take 
a  typewritten  document  and  tell  what  kind  of  a 
machine  it  is  written  on.  So  they  go  to  Ann  Arbor 
and  they  steal  a  typewriter,  a  portable  typewriter, 
for  the  purpose  of  writing  these  letters  on  it,  and 
they  go  along  working  out  the  details  of  this  crime. 

Mr.  Darrow  says  that  there  is  no  motive;  that 
this  is  a  senseless  crime;  that  the  $10,000  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  I  will  undertake  to  prove, 
not  by  argument,  but  by  sworn  testimony,  that  the 
$10,000  had  much  to  do  with  it.  I  will  show  that 
this  was  not  the  crime  of  diseased  emotion,  but  a 
crime  planned  in  all  its  minuteness  by  more  than 
ordinary  intellect. 

Dr.  Healy,  on  his  cross-examination,  testified  as 
follows : 

Q.  Do  you  regard  this  as  a  crime  of  passion? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  a  cold-blooded  proposition,  premeditated  and 
planned?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Doctor,  if  in  the  inception  of  this  crime  it 
is  admitted  in  evidence  that  the  first  thing  the  de- 
fendants did  was  to  steal  a  typewriter  so  it  would  be 
difficult  for  the  authorities  to  trace  the  letters  written, 
would  you  consider  that  a  form  of  childish  fantasy,  or 
would  you  consider  that  a  result  of  their  intellectual 
attainments?  A.  It  is  the  result  of  their  intellectual 
attainments,  in  my  opinion. 

248 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Q.  And  if,  after  having  procured  the  typewriter,  they 
bought  a  block  of  paper,  plain  paper,  so  that  it  would  be 
difficult  or  impossible  to  trace  it,  and  wrote  the  letters 
on  that;  would  that  be  the  fantasy  working,  or  their 
normal  intellect?  A.  I  think  it  was  very  good  intellect 
working. 

Q.  If,  after  having  written  a  letter,  the  defendants 
destroyed  the  remaining  sheets  of  paper  by  burning  them, 
and  attempted  to  destroy  or  lose  the  typewriter,  by 
throwing  it  into  the  water,  after  removing  the  keys  and 
throwing  them  in  a  different  part  of  the  lake,  was  that 
boyish  fantasy  in  operation,  or  was  it  their  good  in- 
tellects? A.  I  think  it  was  all  part  and  parcel  of  their 
desire  and  plan  to  commit  a  perfect  crime. 

Q.  Now,  intellect  is  sometimes  commonly  referred  to 
as  good  horse  sense,  isn't  it?  A.  I  think  it  is  their 
intellect  working;  I  don't  know  about  the  horse  sense, 
but  it  is  their  intellect. 

Q.  Well,  good  common  sense?  A.  I  don't  think 
they  are  showing  much  common  sense  in  committing  the 
crime  at  all,  you  see;  but,  having  started  on  it,  they  used 
very  good  intellect. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect  or  fantasy  that  caused  them  to 
assume  the  name  of  Morton  D.  Ballard,  and  rent  a  room 
in  the  Morrison  Hotel  under  that  name?  A.  Un- 
doubtedly their  intellect  working. 

Q.  After  having  given  the  name  of  Morton  D.  Bal- 
lard, the  address  at  the  Morrison  Hotel,  the  name  of 
Louis  Mason  as  a  Chicago  reference,  was  it  childish 
fantasy  that  caused  Loeb  to  remain  at  the  telephone 
booth  on  Wabash  Avenue,  the  number  of  which  Leopold 
had  given  to  the  Rent-a-Car  people,  to  wait  for  him  to 
call  on  Louis  IMason ;  was  that  fantasy  or  intellect  work- 
ing?    A.    Undoubtedly  intellect. 

Q.    Was  it  intellect  working  when  they  opened  a 

249 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

bank  account  at  the  Hyde  Park  State  Bank  under  the 
name  of  Morton  D.  Ballard  and  gave  that  as  the  bank 
reference?     A.     I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect,  or  boyish,  childish  fantasy  work- 
ing, when  they  took  the  bloody  rope  that  they  had 
wrapped  the  body  in  and  saturated  it  with  gasoline  and 
took  it  to  the  lake  to  burn?  A.  I  think  it  was  their 
intellect. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect  or  fantasy  working,  when  they 
attempted  to  rub  the  bloodstains  from  the  rented  car? 
A.    Intellect,  I  believe. 

Q.  In  other  words,  every  detail  of  this  crime  is  a 
crime  of  intellect,  and  not  a  fantasy?    A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  And  they  are  above  the  average  intellect? 
A.    One  of  them  is;  the  other  is  not. 

Q.  The  other  is  not?  A.  I  think  he  is  just  about 
average. 

Q.  And  so  superintellect  in  one  case  and  normal 
intellect  in  one  case  planned  and  carried  out  every  de- 
tail of  this  crime?     A.     I  think  so. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect  or  childish  fantasy  that  caused 
Leopold  to  try  to  divert  suspicion  prior  to  his  arrest  to 
other  persons?     A.     It  was  his  intellect  that  worked. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect  or  fantasy  that  caused  Leopold  to 
lie  for  two  days  to  the  State's  Attorney  of  this  county 
when  first  brought  in?     A.     Intellect. 

Q.  Was  it  intellect  or  fantasy  that  caused  Loeb  when 
brought  to  the  State's  Attorney  to  lie  for  a  considerable 
period  of  time?     A.     I  think  it  was  his  intellect. 

Q.  Now  were  there  any  other  emotions  acting  in  con- 
junction with  the  intellect  when  they  attempted  to  cover 
up  this  crime  by  the  various  things  they  did  and  by  the 
various  lies  they  told?  A.  It  would  be  hard  for  me 
to  say  whether  there  was  or  not,  or  whether  it  was,  very 
largely,  an  intellectual  process. 

250 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

There  is  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of 
testimony.  I  wondered  when  I  heard  these  doctors 
say  that  they  could  not  make  a  complete  adequate 
examination  in  less  than  twenty  or  thirty  days, 
whether  the  fact  that  they  were  working  on  a  per 
diem  rate  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  did  not 
enter  into  the  matter. 

The  State  was  peculiarly  fortunate  in  this  case, 
in  that  we  took  time  by  the  forelock.  Mr.  Bachrach, 
Jr.,  was  guileless  enough  to  believe  that  after  I  had 
gotten  their  confessions  and  corroborated  them  in 
every  detail,  I  had  a  suspicion  in  my  mind  that 
these  two  young  perverts  and  murderers  were  insane. 
Mr.  Darrow  knows  me  a  little  longer,  and  he  is  not 
quite  so  guileless  as  the  younger  Bachrach,  and  he 
guessed  that  maybe  after  I  knew  they  had  no  de- 
fense on  the  fact,  and  knew  how  much  money 
they  had,  I  might  think  that  they  were  going  to 
put  in  some  kind  of  a  fancy  insanity  defense.  And 
that  is  the  reason  I  sent  for  the  four  best  alienists 
in  Chicago,  while  I  still  had  these  young,  egotistical 
Smart  Alecs  —  that  is  all  they  are,  they  are  not 
supermen,  they  are  just  a  couple  of  spoiled  Smart 
Alecs,  spoiled  by  the  twaddling  and  petting  of  their 
folks  and  by  the  people  who  fawn  upon  them  on 
account  of  their  wealth.  They  repeat,  parrotlike, 
things  that  they  have  remembered  and  assume  the 
solemn  expression  of  an  owl  and  talk  about  super- 
men. In  one  breath  one  of  these  wise  men  from  the 
East  will  tell  you  that  the  two  defendants  still  be- 

251 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

lieve  in  Santa  Claus,  and  then  in  the  next  breath  Mr. 
Darrow  will  tell  you  that  they  do  not  believe  even 
in  God. 

What  better  opportunity  in  God's  world  has  the 
State  ever  had  in  an  examination  than  was  had  in 
this,  from  2:30  until  6:30,  and  these  two  young 
Smart  Alecs  were  telling  their  story  and  boasting  of 
their  depravity  before  they  had  been  advised  to  in- 
vent insanity,  before  they  had  been  advised  to 
answer  certain  questions  in  certain  ways,  and  before 
they  had  been  advised  to  withhold,  even  from  the 
wise  men  of  the  East,  certain  information  that  might 
be  detrimental  to  the  defense  in  this  case?  Yes,  as 
Doctor  Krohn  said,  their  souls  were  bare.  Every 
incident  that  they  told  me  about  I  put  a  witness  on 
the  stand  to  prove.  Every  detail  of  their  confes- 
sion has  been  corroborated  by  sworn  testimony  and 
by  exhibits  offered  in  evidence. 

And,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  don't  think  that 
there  are  a  lot  of  things  that  we  have  to  have 
alienists  for.  I  don't  think  that  it  is  necessary,  in 
a  majority  of  cases,  for  you  or  for  me,  or  for  other 
men  experienced  in  the  practice  of  the  criminal  law, 
to  call  in  an  alienist  to  find  out  whether  John  Jones, 
the  author  of  this  handwriting,  also  wrote  that.  In 
a  great  many  cases  we  can  tell  by  looking  at  them 
whether  they  were  written  by  the  same  person.  I 
am  not  the  physician  that  the  younger  Bachrach  is, 
I  am  not  the  philosopher  that  the  senior  counsel  is, 
but  I  think  that  if  I  talk  to  a  man  for  four  hours 

252 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

consecutively  and  he  is  insane,  I  am  going  to  have 
a  pretty  good  suspicion  of  it,  and  I  believe  if  your 
Honor  watches  a  man  for  thirty  days,  day  in  and 
day  out,  and  he  is  a  lunatic,  you  are  going  to  have 
a  well  defined  suspicion  of  it. 

When  the  learned  doctor  who  had  been  employed 
to  find  out  just  how  crazy  these  two  fellows  were  got 
on  the  stand,  he  was  probably  instructed:  "Just 
make  them  crazy  enough  so  they  won't  hang,  but 
don't  make  them  crazy  enough  to  make  it  necessary 
to  put  this  up  to  twelve  men,  because  twelve  men 
are  not  going  to  be  fooled  by  your  twaddle.  Just 
make  them  insane  enough  so  it  will  make  a  mitigat- 
ing circumstance  that  we  can  submit  to  the  court." 

One  of  these  wise  men  was  asked: 

Q.  Doctor,  do  you  know  that  Leopold  has  written  a 
great  deal  upon  the  subject  of  ornithology,  that  he  is  one 
of  the  authorities  on  that  subject  in  the  United  States, 
that  he  has  lectured  before  the  students  of  Harvard 
University  upon  that  subject?     A.    Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Q.     Did  you  see  his  work?     A.     Yes. 

Q.     Did  you  read  that?     A.    No. 

Q.  You  were  employed  to  examine  that  man,  weren't 
you?    A.    Yes. 

Q.     What  did  you  do?     A.     I  examined  his  urine. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  you  could  get  a  better  idea  of  his 
mental  condition  by  reading  the  things  that  he  wrote, 
the  product  of  his  brain,  than  you  could  by  examining 
his  urine.    A.     I  don't  know. 

Now,  probably  he  just  wanted  to  find  out  how 
much  sugar  he  could  discover  to  lay  a  foundation 

253 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

for  an  argument  by  Clarence  Darrow  that  these 
two  boys  were  too  sweet  for  your  Honor  to  treat 
as  you  would  the  ordinary  criminal. 

I  was  discussing  the  testimony  of  the  four  State 
alienists,  concededly  four  of  the  best  alienists  in 
the  city  of  Chicago;  and  the  reason  that  the  State's 
Attorney,  in  his  effort  to  enforce  the  law  effectively, 
called  them  in  on  Sunday,  before  the  defendants 
were  taken  out  of  his  custody  and  turned  over  to 
their  lawyers  and  the  sheriff,  was  to  prevent  a  per- 
jured defense  by  their  friends,  associates  and  serv- 
ants; I  called  in  every  person  that  I  understood 
knew  either  one  of  these  boys,  at  once,  and  placed 
them  under  oath  and  asked  them  what  they 
knew  about  the  mental  condition  of  the  defend- 
ants. 

If  I  had  not,  the  defense  in  this  case  would  have 
been  insanity,  and  not  a  mental  disease  that  goes 
all  around  insanity  in  order  to  avoid  a  jury  trial. 

I  don't  wonder  that  the  senior  counsel,  in  his  wis- 
dom gained  through  many  years  of  practice,  made 
the  proposition  to  the  State,  when  he  found  out  what 
the  State  had  done  in  the  way  of  preparation: 
"  Don't  you  call  any  of  your  lay  witnesses,  and  I 
won't  call  any  of  mine."  I  told  him:  "  Bring  on 
your  lay  witnesses.  The  law  is  well  fortified." 
And  after  he  got  through  with  Miss  Nathan,  he  was 
through  with  all  the  rest. 

Don't  overlook  these  facts:  the  State's  alienists 
say,  in  addition  to  the  matters  and  things  that  they 

254 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

learned,  that  they  took  into  consideration  every  bit 
of  Dr.  Hulbert's  report,  just  the  same  as  the  three 
wise  men  from  the  East  did.  Not  only  that;  they 
took  into  consideration  all  the  testimony  of  these 
three  wise  men.  They  didn't  overlook  a  word;  they 
didn't  overlook  the  fact  that  one  shaved  every  day 
and  the  other  one  shaved  twice  a  week;  they  even 
considered  the  little  Teddy  and  the  cowboy  suit. 
And  from  it  all  they  found  no  evidence  of  mental 
disease. 

The  only  explanation  I  can  give  of  the  testimony 
of  Dr.  White  is  that  he  is  in  his  second  childhood. 
I  would  hate  to  think  a  man  of  his  attainments 
would  prostitute  his  profession  and  prostitute  his 
learning  to  tell  the  story  that  he  told  here. 

One  of  the  very  significant  things  the  eminent 
doctor  says  was  that  little  Dick  had  his  picture 
taken  in  a  cowboy's  uniform  when  he  was  four 
years  of  age;  and  that  is  a  distinguishing  thing  and 
stamped  him  as  one  of  diseased  mind,  with  homici- 
dal tendencies;  and  I  saw  a  shudder  go  through 
every  woman  in  the  court  room  that  has  a  "  kid  " 
four  or  five  years  of  age,  and  I  began  to  think 
of  my  four  "  kids."  I  suppose  Marshall  Field's 
sale  of  cowboy  suits  must  have  fallen  off  at 
least  one  hundred  thousand  since  that  doctor  testi- 
fied. 

When  the  other  doctors  saw  how  ridiculous  and 
silly  it  all  was,  they  said  they  paid  no  attention  to 
it;  and  one  by  one,  each  doctor  discarded  this  silly 

255 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

bosh  that  the  preceding  doctor  had  testified  to  as 
distinguishing  matter;  and  finally  the  Grand  Old  — 
the  gland  old  —  Man  of  the  Defense,  Clarence  Dar- 
row,  seeing  how  absolutely  absurd  it  was,  sub- 
stituted as  a  defense  in  this  case  his  peculiar 
philosophy  of  life,  of  which  we  will  talk  later  on. 

They  put  on  Dr.  Hulbert  to  testify  about  certain 
glands,  ductless  and  otherwise ;  and  your  Honor 
heard  an  eminent  authority  upon  that  subject.  Dr. 
Woodyatt,  and  he  said  there  is  so  little  known 
about  the  pineal  gland  and  about  these  other  mat- 
ters and  things  that  this  other  doctor  testified  to  so 
glibly,  that  nobody  knew  what  effect  it  would  have 
upon  the  mind  of  a  person,  that  a  calcified  gland  ex- 
isted in  a  sane,  sound  mind,  the  same  as  it  did  in 
a  diseased  mind;  and  that  all  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Hulbert  upon  that  proposition  was  as  illuminating 
and  valuable  as  that  of  Old  Doc  Yak  with  his 
Teddy  bears  and  Buffalo  Bill  suits. 

If  these  men  are  insane,  I  ask  your  Honor  why 
they  were  instructed  not  to  let  our  alienists  ex- 
amine them  further. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I  object  to  that  statement;  there  is 
no  such  evidence,  and  no  evidence  that  you  ever 
asked  for  it. 

Mr.  Crowe:  It  is  in  evidence,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  when  they  were  in  my  office  Monday 
and  Dr.  Singer  was  there,  they  replied  to  all  ques- 
tions: "  On  advice  of  counsel  we  decline  to  answer." 
If  the  defense  was  a  heavy  cancer,  why  should  not 

256 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

they  bare  their  breasts  and  let  every  doctor  and 
layman  look  on  and  see  it?  If  there  is  a  diseased 
mind  why  tell  Dr.  Singer:  "  On  advice  of  counsel, 
we  respectfully  decline  to  answer  "  ?  Are  they  hon- 
est in  their  defense?  Or  are  they  trying  to  put  some- 
thing over  on  the  court? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Pardon  me.  There  is  nowhere  any 
evidence  that  Dr.  Singer  ever  asked  any  questions, 
or  that  they  were  ever  asked  for  any  examination 
by  Dr.  Singer  or  by  any  other  alienist  which  they 
did  not  allow. 

[A  recess  was  here  taken  until  the  following  morning 
when  Mr.  Crowe  resumed  his  argument.] 

Mr.  Crowe:  May  it  please  your  Honor,  last  night 
I  was  talking  about  the  State  alienists  and  the  three 
wise  men  from  the  East  who  came  here  to  testify 
that  the  little  "  Babe,"  or  the  little  babes,  rather, 
were  suffering  from  a  diseased  mind.  But  no  one 
has  been  able  to  give  this  mental  disease  a  name. 
And  yet  everyone  who  got  on  the  stand  for  the  de- 
fense pretended  to  know  all  that  there  was  in  the 
books  and  a  great  deal  that  never  got  into  the  books. 

I  was  surprised  that  Old  Doc  White  wasn't  able  to 
name  the  peculiar  mental  disease  he  says  exists  here, 
because  he  in  the  past  has  been  able  to  invent  names 
for  diseases  which  did  not  exist.  If  your  Honor  will 
recollect,  I  questioned  him  as  to  whether  or  not  he 
was  the  same  William  A.  White  who  testified  in  the 
case  of  Gonzales  vs.  the  United  States,  and  he  said 

257 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

he  was.  There  he  was  trying  to  save  a  man  from 
death. 

Mr.  Bachrach:  I  object,  if  your  Honor  please,  to 
any  argument  based  upon  the  Gonzales  case,  upon 
the  ground  that  your  Honor  specifically  refused  to 
let  us  show  our  side  of  the  case,  and  your  Honor 
stated  at  that  time  you  did  not  care  what  occurred 
in  the  Gonzales  case. 

Mr.  Crowe:  If  we  can  quote  poetry  and  if  we  can 
quote  philosophy,  I  do  not  know  why  I  cannot  quote 
law. 

Mr.  Darrow:  That  is  not  quoting  law. 

Mr.  Crowe:  I  called  their  attention  to  the  case, 
and  identified  the  doctor  as  having  testified  in  it, 
and  in  their  argument  they  could  have  argued 
anything  they  wanted  to  about  it.  They  have 
argued  every  other  case  that  was  tried  in  the 
Criminal  Court  of  Cook  County.  There  was  a  man 
in  prison,  and  Dr.  White  was  trying  to  save  him 
from  the  gallows,  and  he  said  he  had  a  "  prison 
psychosis."  That  is,  he  was  afraid,  he  was  scared 
stiff  that  he  was  going  to  hang.  And  the  United 
States  Court  says  that  the  opinion  is  expressed  that 
the  prisoner  is  suffering  from  ^'  prison  psychosis," 
a  newly  discovered  type  of  mental  disease  or  in- 
sanity.   Discovered  by  Dr.  White. 

The  court  quotes  Dr.  White  as  saying  that  the 
theory  of  malingering  does  not  entirely  explain  the 
situation.  "  He  also  says  that  a  previous  attack  of 
mental  disturbance  let  up  very  shortly  after  he  had 

258 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

been  sent  to  Daunemora.  This  evidently  refers  to 
a  former  conviction  in  some  other  jurisdiction,  after 
which  he  had  been  committed  to  an  insane  asylum. 
And  he  adds  (quoting  Doctor  White)  '  In  all 
probability  this  present  disturbance  would  all  dis- 
appear very  rapidly  if  the  causes  for  its  existence 
were  removed.'  " 

In  all  probability  the  present  mental  disease  of 
these  two  defendants  would  disappear  very  rapidly 
if  the  causes  for  its  existence  were  removed.  If  the 
glasses  had  never  been  found,  if  the  State's  Attor- 
ney had  not  fastened  the  crime  upon  these  two  de- 
fendants, Nathan  Leopold  would  be  over  in  Paris  or 
some  other  of  the  gay  capitals  of  Europe,  indulging 
his  unnatural  lust  with  the  $5,000  he  had  wrung 
from  Jacob  Franks.  If  they  were  to  be  discharged 
today,  through  some  technicality  in  the  law,  this 
present  disturbance  would  all  disappear  very  rap- 
idly, if  the  causes  for  its  existence  were  removed. 
I  used  to  wonder  why  they  got  Doc  White  —  and 
this  explains  it. 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  will  go  back  of  this 
defense,  and  see  whether  it  is  an  honest  defense  or 
not,  see  whether  these  mental  disturbances  came  on 
as  suddenly  as  they  would  disappear  if  the  causes 
of  them  were  removed.  Your  Honor  will  recollect 
that  while  doctors  employed  by  the  defense  were 
sitting  in  the  court  room,  witnesses  were  put  on  to 
testify  to  fainting  spells.  The  purpose  of  that  was 
to  lay  a   foundation,   in  my  judgment,   for  some 

259 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

doctor  to  later  take  the  stand  and  testify  that  Loeb 
was  suffering  from  epilepsy;  and  it  would  be  argued 
that,  having  epilepsy,  his  mind  was  diseased. 

Dr.  Hulbert,  in  his  report,  as  I  will  later  show 
you,  says  that  there  were  not  any  evidences  of  faint- 
ing in  Loeb,  except  one  fainting  spell  that  he  had 
during  initiation;  and  yet  witness  after  witness  was 
put  on,  and  they  testified  that  he  fainted,  that  his 
eyes  were  glassy,  and  that  he  frothed  at  the  mouth. 
But  cross-examination  showed  that  he  was  merely 
drunk;  he  was  not  rigid,  but  he  was  stiff;  his  froth- 
ing at  the  mouth  was  a  drunken  vomit. 

The  evidence  further  showed  that  these  other 
fainting  spells  were  due  to  the  fact  that,  in  one  case, 
seven  or  eight  large  boys  jumped  on  him,  and  he 
fainted  as  the  result  of  injuries  inflicted  upon  him; 
he  fainted  again  in  the  hospital  after  he  had  been 
in  an  automobile  accident,  and  the  doctor  who 
waited  upon  him  said  that  the  fainting  spells  were 
due  entirely  in  his  judgment  to  the  accident.  Then 
the  doctor  who  had  been  employed  to  take  the  stand 
and  testify  to  epilepsy  was  dismissed.  If  these  lay 
witnesses  had  stood  up,  and  had  not  broken  down 
under  cross-examination,  that  doctor  would  have 
testified  to  epilepsy. 

I  submit  that  this  defense  is  not  an  honest  de- 
fense. This  is  a  defense  built  up  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  case.  If  the  State  had  only  had  half  of  the 
evidence  that  it  did  have,  or  a  quarter  of  the  evi- 
dence that  it  had,  we  would  have  had  a  jury  in  the 

260 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

box,  and  a  plea  of  not  guilty.  But  trapped  like  a 
couple  of  rats,  with  no  place  to  escape  except 
through  an  insanity  defense,  they  proceed  to  build 
it  up. 

A  weird,  uncanny  crime?  The  crime  is  not  as 
weird  or  uncanny  as  the  defenscthat  is  put  in  here. 
Let  us  see  what  Dr.  Hulbert  said  in  his  report. 
That  is  in  evidence,  introduced  by  the  defense,  so 
I  do  not  suppose  there  will  be  any  objection  to  my 
reading  from  that.  I  am  glad  that  the  defendants' 
lawyers  concede  me  some  few  rights  in  this  court 
room,  although  they  argue  that  I  ought  to  be  down 
in  the  office,  after  a  plea  of  guilty,  and  that  I  have 
no  business  up  here  at  all. 

The  report:  "  Personal  history,  Richard  Loeb. 
Mother's  health:  During  pregnancy  she  was  not 
very  sick.  Her  fever  was  not  remarkable,  although 
there  was  much  morning  sickness." 

The  doctor  did  not  testify  to  that  on  direct  ex- 
amination, your  Honor.  He  did  not  think  this 
report  would  ever  get  into  the  hands  of  the  State's 
Attorney,  and  he  said  he  did  not.  He  created  the 
impression  by  his  direct  examination  that  there 
was  something  wrong  at  the  time  of  this  boy's 
birth. 

What  does  he  say  in  his  report?  He  was  a  per- 
fect baby.  Oh!  He  developed  a  little  late  sexually, 
and  at  the  age  of  fifteen  Dr.  Hulbert  in  his  report 
said  he  had  gonorrhea. 

On  page  nine:  "  There  is  no  history  of  fainting 
261 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

attacks  except  that  once  during  an  initiation  cere- 
mony at  school  he  fainted." 

In  other  words,  after  considering  the  Teddy  bears 
and  the  Buffalo  Bill  suits,  and  all  this  other  trash 
that  was  testified  to  by  these  wise  men  from  the 
East,  counsel  or  somebody  decided  that  they  had  to 
add  something  more  to  it  to  make  it  stand  even  as 
a  mitigating  circumstance,  and  while  their  report 
said  that  there  was  no  history  of  fainting  attacks 
except  once,  they  tried  to  prove  a  dozen  in  order  to 
build  a  foundation  for  epilepsy. 

Then  this  nurse;  the  nurse  who,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  defense,  knew  more  about  Richard 
Loeb  up  until  the  time  he  was  fourteen  years  of  age 
than  any  living  person.  They  tried  to  create  the 
impression  that  she  was  insane,  and  that  Dick 
caught  his  insanity  from  her,  the  same  as  one  boy 
catches  measles  from  another.  They  had  her  here 
in  Chicago  and  she  is  not  produced  as  a  witness.  A 
letter  was  read  to  indicate  that  she  was  insane,  and 
if  I  ever  read  a  letter  that  more  clearly  demonstrated 
sanity  than  the  letter  written  by  that  nurse,  I  don't 
remember  it.  It  was  a  kindly,  loving  letter,  sent 
by  a  woman  to  a  boy  she  loved,  filled  with  motherly 
advice,  advice  that  it  develops  is  so  sadly  needed  in 
this  case  by  these  two  young  perverts. 

A  picture  was  introduced  of  her  to  show  that  she 
was  some  terribly  hideous  creature.  Let  us  see 
what  Dr.  Hulbert  says  about  her:  "  She  returned 
to  Chicago  after  the  arrest  of  young  Richard  to  help 

262 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

him  in  any  way  she  could,  and  through  the  attorneys 
arrangements  were  made  for  an  interview.  She  is 
very  reserved,  quiet  and  strict;  her  memory  is  good. 
She  is  a  woman  of  attractive  appearance,  modestly 
and  carefully  dressed.  She  denied  any  imperfec- 
tions in  herself  while  with  the  boy  during  her  stay 
with  the  family.  She  said  that  he  was  quite  all  right 
at  15  years  of  age,  at  the  time  she  left  the  house. 
She  said  he  was  a  lazy  boy,  but  a  bright  student. 
He  was  lazy  until  he  got  along  in  several  grades  at 
school  where  he  found  that  he  could  graduate  in  one 
year's  less  time  than  he  expected,  if  he  would  study, 
and  so  he  began  to  study  hard.  She  denied  that  he 
ever  had  fears  or  any  disorder  in  his  sleep.  She 
would  not  say  anything  which  might  reflect  on  the 
boy,  even  though  she  was  plainly  told  that  a  com- 
plete understanding  of  this  boy  was  essential  for  an 
accurate  diagnosis." 

She  came  on  here,  as  Dr.  Hulbert  said,  to  do  any- 
thing within  her  power  to  help  the  boy,  short  of 
perjury;  although  she  was  told  that  a  complete 
understanding  of  the  boy  was  essential  for  a  correct 
diagnosis,  which  means  for  a  defense  in  this  case, 
she  would  not  say  anything  that  might  reflect  upon 
him,  because  she  intended  to  tell  the  truth,  and  that 
is  why  she  was  sworn  as  a  witness  before  these 
ahenists,  but  was  not  brought  into  court  and  sworn 
before  your  Honor. 

It  has  been  argued  here  that  because  Richard 
Loeb  told  the  doctors  that  he  had  no  ambition  in 

263 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

life,  that  he  hadn't  selected  or  thought  of  any 
profession,  that  is  an  indication  he  is  mentally  un- 
balanced; and  because  the  other  defendant  had  a 
definite  ambition  in  life,  he  is  also  mentally  un- 
balanced. 

A  happy  philosophy  of  medicine,  especially  when 
you  are  testifying  in  a  guilty  case,  and  trying  to 
cheat  the  gallows.  It  is  too  bad  that  they  have  two 
defendants  here.  It  would  be  so  much  easier  to 
prove  one  insane,  because  anything  you  found  in 
him  could  be  a  bad  sign.  But  when  you  have  two, 
and  they  are  not  exactly  alike,  when  one  has  broken 
arches  and  the  other  has  a  high  arch,  why,  then,  it 
has  got  to  be  a  bad  sign  in  one  and  a  bad  sign  in  the 
other.  And  if  one  has  to  shave  every  day,  that  is 
a  bad  sign;  and  if  the  other  does  not  have  to  shave 
but  twice  a  week,  that  is  a  bad  sign.  It  was  a  bad 
sign  that  Richard  Loeb  did  not  have  any  definite 
aim  or  purpose  in  life,  and  it  was  also  a  bad  sign 
because  Leopold  wanted  to  study  law  and  ornith- 
ology. 

Well,  let  us  see  what  Dr.  Hulbert  says  about  this: 
"  When  the  patient  "  —  that  is  Loeb  —  "  was  asked 
about  what  use  he  expected  to  make  of  his  educa- 
tion, and  what  were  his  ambitions,  he  stated  he 
expected  to  study  law  the  next  year.  He  said  he 
had  always  intended  to  study  law." 

And  yet  when  they  were  putting  on  their  defense, 
everybody  had  him  wandering  around  like  a  ship 


264 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

without  a  rudder,  and  not  knowing  what  port  he  was 
going  to  put  into. 

''  At  one  time  he  had  thought  of  teaching  history, 
but  he  felt  that  he  was  not  of  the  scholarly  type. 
Asked  why,  he  replied  that  he  was  always  lazy,  and 
that  he  could  never  sit  down  and  apply  himself. 
As  a  boy,  he  poisoned  his  mind  by  reading  detective 
stories." 

Well,  therein  is  where  a  whole  lot  of  us  are  in  the 
same  fix.  I  remember  crawling  under  the  bed  to 
read  Nick  Carter.  After  I  got  through  reading  Nick 
Carter  I  began  to  read  Gaboriau's  French  detective 
stories,  and  when  I  was  a  student  of  Yale  I  paid 
more  attention  to  Raffles  than  I  did  to  real  property. 

Oh,  the  only  reason  that  Dickie  committed  this 
slight  delinquency  of  murdering  little  Bobby  Franks 
was  that  he  desired  the  thrill;  all  his  life  he  craved 
for  thrills. 

What  do  Bowman  and  Hulbert  say  about  it? 
"  He  never  appeared  to  crave  a  thrill  or  excitement, 
but  was  rather  quiet  in  his  conduct;  after  Miss 
Struthers  left  that  home  he  seemed  to  be  much  the 
same  as  before,  quiet,  rather  affectionate,  extremely 
polite  and  respectful." 

That  is  what  the  friends  and  members  of  the 
family  must  have  told  the  doctor.  Here  is  what  the 
patient  told  the  doctor  himself:  "  The  patient's  esti- 
mate of  himself:  While  also  at  times  he  had  a  tre- 
mendous output  of  energy  and  physical  ability,  he 


265 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

tired  easily.     He  is  rather  inclined  to  be  a  leader 
in  athletics  and  games  which  he  enjoys." 

Why,  the  whole  trouble  with  him  is  that  he  never 
led  the  natural  life  that  boys  lead.  He  was  always 
kept  in  the  house  with  his  nose  buried  in  some 
serious,  solemn  volume.  That  is  what  we  were  told. 
And  the  only  time  he  had  any  boys  was  when  Doc 
White  could  put  some  interpretation  upon  those 
boys  which  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  of  a  dis- 
eased mind.  That  is  why  we  heard  about  the  Teddy 
bears  and  these  various  suits  of  his.  He  never  went 
out  and  played  as  boys  play  baseball,  marbles  and 
other  things,  and  yet  when  he  is  talking  to  the 
doctor  and  the  doctor  reports  to  the  three  wise  men 
from  the  East,  he  says  he  is  inclined  to  be  a  leader 
in  athletics  and  games,  which  he  enjoys. 

"  He  makes  friends  very  easily  and  feels  quite  at 
ease  with  strangers.  He  is  inclined  to  be  a  leader 
and  likes  to  dominate  his  environments." 

Well,  isn't  that  natural?  Everybody  desires  to 
strive,  to  succeed  and  to  lead.  But  the  doctor  adds, 
"  but  can  fit  himself  easily  into  any  sort  of  a  situa- 
tion so  that  he  does  not  become  bothered  or  upset 
if  some  one  else  happens  to  be  dominating  the  very 
situation  and  he  is  compelled  to  assume  a  minor 
role." 

Also:  "While  the  patient  often  acts  without  re- 
flection and  is  quite  impulsive,  he  nevertheless  plans 
a  great  deal  and  works  out  consistent  schemes  for 
the  future." 

266 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

He  plans  a  great  deal  and  works  out  consistent 
schemes  for  the  future  —  this  mad  brain  of  this  mad 
boy! 

"  He  is  open  and  frank  with  others  as  long  as  he 
feels  there  is  nothing  he  wants  to  conceal." 

Dr.  White  said  he  couldn't  lie  to  him.  "  Nobody 
can  lie  to  me.  I  can  read  their  minds  just  the  same 
as  a  doctor  can  look  into  the  human  body  with  an 
X-ray." 

Well,  I  don't  suppose  he  thinks  he  knows  more 
than  the  Lord  does,  but  I  don't  believe  he  would 
concede  that  the  Lord  knew  any  more  than  he  does 
when  the  Lord  was  his  age. 

"  But  if  he  feels  that  it  is  to  his  interest  to  hold 
back  something  he  does  so.  He  therefore  gives  an 
appearance  of  great  frankness,  which  is  not  true. 
The  patient  says  that  he  will  tell  a  lie  with  no  com- 
punction whatever,  and  that  he  is  completely  dis- 
honest." 

Let  us  see  whether  he  lied  to  these  doctors  and 
withheld  information,  the  same  as  they  lied  to  your 
Honor  and  withheld  information.  Here  again  the 
doctor  says,  talking  about  his  being  tied  to  the  apron 
strings  of  an  old  nurse  and  never  being  allowed  to 
play  as  other  boys  played,  page  41 :  "  He  has 
always  been  fond  of  athletics  and  outdoors  sports 
such  as  tennis,  swimming,  hockey,  skating  and  so 
forth.  He  is  considered  an  extremely  good  bridge 
player  and  has  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  playing  it. 
He  is  fond  of  dancing  and  mixed  society.    He  has 

267 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

used  alcohol  considerably  since  he  was  i  s  and  gotten 
drunk  a  number  of  times." 

Never  permitted  to  play  with  other  boys,  never 
allowed  the  recreation  that  other  boys  had,  and  yet 
Dr.  Hulbert  said  on  page  42:  "  In  1912  at  the  age 
of  seven,  he  and  Jack  Mandel  built  a  five-foot- 
square  room  with  a  pointed  roof.  This  was  used  as 
a  playhouse.  A  year  or  so  later  the  boys  formed  a 
guinea  pig  company  and  used  the  playhouse  for  the 
office  of  the  company.  In  191 6  Richard  Loeb,  with 
five  or  six  other  boys,  published  two  issues  of  a  small 
three-by-five-inch,  24-page  journal,  called  Richard's 
Magazine.  His  contribution  was  that  of  being 
editor,  manager  and  author.  His  writings  showed 
quite  advanced  thinking  for  a  boy  of  his  age,  and 
reflected  well  the  humanitarian  environment  of  his 
home." 

Reflected  the  humanitarian  environment  of  his 
home,  and  yet  Mr.  Darrow  in  a  vain  effort  to  save 
their  worthless  lives  has  said  that  they  committed 
this  murder  on  account  of  their  famflies. 

Oh,  another  interesting  thing  that  leads  these 
wise  men  to  think  that  they  are  demented  and  stark 
mad  is  that  over  in  jail,  while  he  is  preparing  his 
defense,  he  wants  to  wear  an  old  ragged  coat. 

"  He  has  always  been  careful  of  his  personal  ap- 
pearance and  neat  and  clean  about  his  person  and 
has  liked  to  appear  well  dressed.  He  has  always 
had  a  pleasant  consciousness  of  his  own  body." 

We  are,  talking  about  the  poor  little  rich  boy  who 

268 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

had  been  brought  up  in  a  golden  cage,  and  never 
had  a  chance  to  use  his  wings  as  other  boys  did. 
And  again  I  find  in  Dr.  Hulbert's  report:  "  He  has 
always  been  interested  in  camping  and  motor  boat- 
ing and  outdoor  life  in  general.  This  has  never 
been  linked  with  any  intellectual  pursuit  such  as 
botany,  zoology  or  the  like." 

Tennis,  swimming,  hockey,  skating,  bridge,  danc- 
ing, all  the  sports  every  healthy,  natural  boy  would 
like  to  indulge  in,  but  a  great  many  of  which  many 
are  not  able  to  indulge  in,  being  the  rich  boys  of 
poor  parents  and  not  the  poor  boys  of  multimillion- 
aires. 

They  didn't  lie  when  questioned  by  their  alienists. 
It  would  not  have  done  them  any  good  to  lie  to  Dr. 
White  anyhow.  But  they  did  not  lie  to  any  of 
them;  and  they  will  testify  that  if  they  had  lied, 
an  impossible  thing,  and  if  the  things  that  they  had 
told  them  had  been  false  and  that  they  had  held 
back  certain  things  that  were  material,  they  would 
have  changed  their  opinion.  Oh,  undoubtedly,  if 
the  facts  were  not  as  they  are,  we  would  come  to  a 
different  conclusion.  But  these  boys  were  collabo- 
rating with  us  while  we  were  planning  this  weird, 
uncanny  defense  for  them.  They  didn't  lie  and  they 
didn't  withhold  anything. 

Well,  let's  see  what  this  report  says:  "  During  the 
examination  and  his  recitation  of  his  criminal  career 
he  was  not  quite  frank.  Without  any  indication 
facially  or  otherwise  he  would  lie  and  repress  certain 

269 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

instances,  unless  he  imagined  that  the  doctor  was 
previously  aware  of  those  instances.  When  ques- 
tioned about  this  later  he  said  he  had  failed  to  men- 
tion certain  things  because  he  thought  it  advisable 
not  to  mention  them  or  because  he  had  been  advised 
not  to  mention  them." 

After  some  guileless  attorney,  studied  in  the  medi- 
cine and  grounded  in  it  probably  more  than  he  is 
in  the  practice  of  criminal  law,  some  doctor  or  some 
member  of  the  family  had  gotten  these  two  Smart 
Alecs  and  had  trained  and  prepared  them  and 
told  them  what  to  tell  the  doctors  and  what  not 
to  tell  them,  then  they  bring  out  these  doctors 
and  say:  "  Now,  go  in  and  listen  to  that  story 
and  if,  after  you  listen  to  the  story  they  tell  you, 
you  don't  think  they  are  crazy,  then  you  must  be 
crazy." 

"  His  older  brother  Allen  does  not  know  of  these 
untold  stories,  but  the  patient  says  he  will  not  tell 
them  unless  Allen  advises  him  so  to  do." 

What  are  these  untold  stories?  They  were  not 
going  to  lie  in  order  to  fool  the  doctors,  so  that  the 
doctors  could  fool  your  Honor.  No.  They  were 
perfectly  frank.  As  Dr.  White  said:  "They  didn't 
lie  to  me  and  they  wouldn't  lie  to  a  man  as  smart  as 
I  am."  They  had  no  thought  when  they  were  talk- 
ing to  the  doctors  as  to  their  defense  in  this  case, 
none  whatever.  They  might  as  a  result  of  a  childish 
phantasy  murder  little  Bobby  Franks  as  they  wan- 
dered along  in  the  dark,  but  God  forbid  that  they 

270 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

should  attempt  to  fool  your  Honor  in  an  effort  to 
save  their  lives. 

But  let  us  continue  from  the  Hulbert-Bowman 
report:  "  On  the  other  hand  there  is  a  certain  legal 
advantage  in  minimizing  the  broadcasting  of  his 
episodes,  even  keeping  them  secret  from  his  attor- 
neys, examiners  or  relatives.  Consequently  no 
great  effort  should  be  made  to  bring  forth  details 
which  he  wilfully  suppresses." 

This  is  Dr.  Bowman  and  Dr.  Hulbert  advising 
Dr.  White,  Dr.  Glueck  and  Dr.  Healy. 

Now,  I  quite  agree  with  Dr.  Hulbert  that  when 
he  wrote  this  report  he  never  thought  it  was  going 
to  be  read  by  the  State's  Attorney. 

"  His  phantasies  usually  occurred  between  the 
time  of  retiring  and  the  time  sleep  comes  over  him. 
He  estimates  that  this  period  was  on  an  average  of 
a  half  an  hour's  duration." 

Not  wandering  around  all  day,  Mr.  Darrow,  in  a 
daydream  and  indulging  in  phantasies,  walking  up 
and  down  the  street,  snapping  fingers,  pointing  out 
buildings,  waving  the  gang  here  and  there;  not  a 
phantasy  that  became  a  part  of  his  life. 

Dr.  Hulbert  and  Dr.  Bowman  said  that  the  phan- 
tasies usually  occur  a  half  hour  before  he  goes  to 
sleep.  That  is  the  time  your  Honor  and  I  and 
everybody  else  have  phantasies.  When  we  get  into 
bed  we  dream  dreams  of  what  we  are  going  to  ac- 
complish and  we  scheme  and  plan,  and  that  is 
exactly  what  Dickie  Loeb  did.    All  this  other  stuff 

271 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

that  we  have  been  regaled  with  is  perjury,  pure  and 
simple;  perjury  for  a  purpose.  From  Philip  drunk 
to  Philip  sober,  from  the  lying  alienist  on  the  stand 
to  a  report  made  by  the  alienist  that  they  did  not 
think  would  come  to  light. 

Now,  continuing  on  page  93 :  ''  He  denied  being 
implicated  in  the  so-called  gland  robbery  of  Mr. 
Ream."  Well,  it  would  be  unfortunate  with  all  of 
these  old  gland  doctors  and  all  this  piffle  about 
glands,  that  Dickie  beat  the  doctors  to  it  and  exper- 
imented on  glands  prior  to  this  time. 

"  He  denied  being  in  Geneva  in  the  case  of  a 
ragged  stranger  who  was  found  dead  with  his  hands 
cut  off  and  his  face  mutilated.  He  denied  having 
participated  in  any  other  delinquencies."  And  mark 
you  this,  your  Honor:  "  But  later  referred  to  four 
episodes  for  which  the  letters  A,  B,  C  and  D  were 
suggested."  He  referred  to  four  episodes.  Four 
crimes,  if  your  Honor  please,  merely  designated  as 
A,  B,  C  and  D.  And  the  two  doctors,  whose  only 
interest  is  to  tell  the  truth  as  they  find  it,  add  in 
their  own  language:  "  It  was  found  forensically 
—  "  now,  what  does  forensically  mean?  That  it 
was  found  from  a  legal  standpoint,  as  the  doctor 
said,  "  forensically  inadvisable  to  question  him 
about  these." 

What  strange  hold  did  this  man  Leopold  have 
upon  Loeb?  Why  did  he  submit  himself  to  the  un- 
natural practices  of  Leopold?  I  will  tell  you,  your 
Honor,  and  I  think  I  will  demonstrate  it  beyond  a 

272 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

peradventure  of  a  doubt,  that  these  four  episodes, 
that  these  four  crimes  were  known  to  Leopold,  and 
he  blackmailed  Loeb,  he  threatened  Loeb  with  ex- 
posure if  he  did  not  submit  to  him,  and  Loeb  had  to 
go  along  with  Leopold.  And  Leopold  was  willing  to 
go  along  with  Loeb  because  he  could  use  his  body 
for  vile  and  unnatural  practices.  And  I  will  prove 
that,  and  I  will  prove  that  by  the  testimony  of  the 
defense  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

"  On  their  way  back  from  Ann  Arbor  "  (on  page 
98)  "  the  plan  of  kidnaping  a  boy  coupled  with  the 
idea  of  ransom  was  first  broached  by  the  patient." 
That  is  the  first  time  that  Loeb  talked  to  Leopold 
about  kidnaping  for  ransom.  Not  a  thrill,  but 
ransom.  And  I  will  demonstrate  that  money  was 
the  motive  here.  I  will  demonstrate  that  they  gam- 
bled and  they  played  for  such  high  stakes  that  even 
their  millionaire  companions  could  not  play  with 
them.  I  win  demonstrate  that  they  had  money  that 
they  cannot  account  for  unless  it  was  the  proceeds 
of  A,  B,  C  or  D. 

"  The  patient  had  a  definite  boy  in  mind  at  that 
time.  The  patient  did  not  like  this  boy  or  his 
family."    So  says  this  report. 

A  crime  by  mad  boys  without  a  purpose,  without 
any  thought  of  revenge,  without  any  thought  of 
money?  Let's  see.  The  first  boy  they  contemplated 
killing  was  a  boy  he  did  not  like.  Hatred,  revenge, 
was  the  motive  in  his  mind  at  that  time,  but  a  desire 
for  money  overcame  that. 

273 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

"  He  was  the  patient's  own  age,  rather  large  for 
his  age.  The  patient's  idea  was  to  get  hold  of  this 
boy  when  he  was  coming  back  from  a  party  and 
lure  him  into  an  automobile.  Neither  of  them,  how- 
ever, could  think  of  any  simple,  certain  way  of  se- 
curing the  money.  They  continued  to  discuss  the 
matter,  weighing  the  pros  and  cons,  suggesting 
methods  only  to  pick  flaws  in  them.  In  March, 
1924,  the  patient  conceived  the  idea  of  securing  "  — 
what?  Thrill?  Excitement?  No.  "  Conceived  the 
idea  of  securing  the  money  by  having  it  thrown  off 
of  a  moving  train.  It  was  figured  out  first  that  the 
money  should  be  thrown  off  of  a  moving  train  when 
it  was  dark  somewhere  in  the  country.  He  and 
his  companion  spent  many  uncomfortable  after- 
noons —  "  (I  really  sympathize  with  you  dear  little 
boys  for  all  the  discomfort  you  have  suffered  on 
those  afternoons.  It  is  too  bad  that  in  this  weird  un- 
canny scheme  of  yours  of  murder,  you  had  to  spend 
many  uncomfortable  afternoons)  —  "  going  over 
the  Illinois  Central  tracks  looking  for  suitable  loca- 
tion." Mad  boys  in  the  dark  and  dreamland,  doing 
a  mad  act  without  any  thought  of  the  consequences 
of  it,  and  not  considering  their  personal  safety  at 
all?  Too  crazy  to  know  that  it  was  wrong  and  too 
crazy  to  care  whether  they  were  caught? 

"  They  both  felt  that  it  was  not  safe  to  use  either 
of  their  own  cars.  The  patient  developed  an  intense 
interest  in  the  plan  and  found  also  that  it  gave  him 
a  very  pleasant  topic  of  conversation  when  he  and 

274 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

his  companion  were  together  drinking  or  driving 
about.  Patient's  companion  suggested  that  they 
rent  a  car,  so  they  went  to  the  Morrison  Hotel  and 
registered  under  the  name  of  Ballard.  Letters  were 
sent  to  Mr.  Ballard  at  the  hotel  and  a  bank  account 
was  opened  in  his  name." 

Here  is  a  man  who  has  no  emotion;  all  intellect 
and  no  emotion.  His  nurse  says  he  was  kind  and 
affectionate,  obedient  and  respectful.  Isn't  that 
emotion?  Isn't  love  one  of  the  greatest  emotions 
that  surge  through  your  heart?  Kind  and  affection- 
ate, loving.  What  does  the  doctor  say?  "  The 
bank  account  was  opened  in  his  name,"  and  then 
the  doctor  adds  in  parenthesis:  "  When  the  patient 
came  to  this  point  in  the  narrative  he  looked  de- 
cidedly interested,  drew  up  his  chair,  talked  almost 
in  a  dramatic  whisper  with  considerable  tension,  his 
eyes  constantly  roaming  the  room." 

Whom  are  you  going  to  believe?  The  doctor, 
after  he  has  been  coached,  taking  the  stand  and  say- 
ing he  has  not  any  emotions,  or  the  doctor  in  the 
first  instance  when  he  is  making  a  report  that  he 
does  not  expect  you  or  me  to  see? 

And  this  document  is  offered  in  mitigation  of  the 
crime.  As  I  said  yesterday,  probably  I  have  been 
confused  by  the  use  of  all  these  learned  terms  in  a 
foreign  language  that  I  did  not  understand  or  learn. 
But  if  this  is  mitigation,  I  would  like  to  know  what 
is  aggravation. 

"  The  patient's  companion  "  —  that  is  Leopold 

275 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

—  "  first  suggested  that  they  get  a  girl.  Then  they 
considered  half  a  dozen  boys,  any  one  of  them  would 
do,  that  they  were  physically  small  enough  to  be 
easily  handled." 

"  One  who  was  physically  small  enough  to  be 
easily  handled,  whose  parents  were  extremely 
wealthy,  and  would  have  no  difficulty  or  disinclina- 
tion to  pay  ransom  money." 

What  is  the  motive?  All  the  way  through  this 
report,  all  the  way  through  the  confessions,  money, 
ransom,  wealth. 

"  Since  they  planned  to  kidnap  a  boy  who  was 
known  to  them,  because  it  would  be  easy  to  lure  him 
into  their  automobile,  they  felt  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  kill  him  at  once  to  avoid  any  possible  identi- 
fication o(f  themselves  by  the  victim  should  he 
escape  or  their  plans  go  awry." 

That  is  the  motive  here.  The  kidnaping  was 
planned  for  ransom.  They  wanted  the  money  first, 
and  they  were  going  to  kidnap  a  boy  to  get  the 
money.  Then,  to  make  sure  they  were  picking  the 
right  fellow,  whose  folks  were  wealthy  and  who 
could  pay  the  ransom,  they  had  to  pick  a  boy  they 
knew  and  who  knew  them.  Then  the  motive  for  the 
murder  was  their  own  self-preservation.  You  do 
not  have  to  take  my  word  for  it;  take  the  word  of 
the  doctors  hired  by  the  defense  who  say  the  boys 
told  them  that,  themselves. 

Was  this  killing  done,  as  we  have  been  asked  to 
believe,  by  the  defense,  merely  for  the  thrill,  your 

276 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Honor,  or  the  excitement?  What  does  the  doctor 
further  say  on  that?  "  The  patient  "  (Loeb)  ''  did 
not  anticipate  the  actual  kiHing  with  any  pleasure." 

It  was  not  for  the  thrill  or  the  excitement.  The 
original  crime  was  the  kidnaping  for  money.  The 
killing  was  an  afterthought,  to  prevent  their  identi- 
fication and  their  subsequent  apprehension  and  pun- 
ishment. He  said  he  did  not  anticipate  the  killing 
with  any  pleasure.  It  was  merely  necessary  in  order 
to  get  the  money.  Motive?  "  The  killing  appar- 
ently has  no  other  significance  "  —  now,  this  is  not 
my  argument,  your  Honor;  but  on  page  103  of  their 
own  report,  their  own  evidence  — "  the  killing 
apparently  has  no  other  significance  than  being  an 
inevitable  part  of  a  perfect  crime  in  covering  one 
possible  trace  of  identification." 

That  is  the  motive  for  the  murder:  self-preserva- 
tion; the  same  as  a  thief  at  night  in  your  house, 
when  suddenly  surprised,  shoots  to  kill. 

See  whether  the  mere  wantonness  of  killing  gave 
them  the  thrill  that  you  are  asked  to  believe.  The 
report  says,  "  They  anticipated  a  few  unpleasant 
minutes  in  strangling  him."  Not  the  thrill  and  the 
delight  and  the  fast-beating  heart  that  they  tell  you 
Dickie  Loeb  has  —  if  he  has  any  heart  at  all. 
No. 

And  I  might  tell  you  at  this  point,  your  Honor, 
that  the  original  plan  of  Loeb  was  not  to  kill  him 
with  a  chisel,  but  they  were  to  strangle  him  to 
death  with  the  ropes  that  they  procured.    He  was 

277 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  pull  one  end  and  Leopold  the  other;  and  the 
reason  he  wanted  that  done  was,  as  I  will  demon- 
strate as  we  go  on,  Leopold  had  something  on  him. 
Leopold  knew  about  the  crimes  A,  B,  C  and  D,  and 
in  this  murder  he  was  going  to  make  Leopold  pull 
the  rope,  so  he  would  have  something  equal  on 
Leopold. 

"  And  they  planned  for  each  of  them,  namely, 
the  patient  and  his  associate,  to  have  hold  of  one 
end  of  the  strangling  rope,  and  they  would  pull  at 
the  same  time,  so  that  both  would  be  equally  guilty 
of  murder.  They  did  not  seem  to  think  that  this 
would  give  them  a  closer  tie  in  their  friendship." 

No  thrill;  no  delight;  it  was  the  sharing  of 
culpability. 

"  It  was  not  anticipated  that  the  blow  on  the  back 
of  the  head  with  the  taped  chisel  would  be  fatal. 
The  patient  states  that  he  thinks  that  during  the 
last  week  preceding  the  crime  he  had  less  pleasure 
in  his  anticipation." 

He  didn't  take  the  same  pleasure  in  thinking  of 
getting  ten  thousand  dollars  by  kidnaping,  the  last 
week,  because  the  murder  began  to  worry  him,  and 
he  was  going  to  make  Leopold  share  the  guilt 
equally  of  the  murder.  This  man  who  does  not 
believe  in  God,  and  certainly  does  not  believe  in  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  who  has  no  emotions  or 
heart,  might  be  surprised  to  know  that  it  was  his 
own  conscience  bothering  him  the  last  week. 

"  He  did  not  want  to  back  out,  because  of  their 

278 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

extensive  plans,  because  of  the  time  spent,  because 
of  the  trouble  they  had  gone  to,  and  because  of  his 
associate  being  in  it  with  him,  and  he  was  afraid  of 
what  the  associate  would  think,  should  he  not  go 
ahead.  They  decided  to  get  any  young  boy  they 
knew  to  be  of  a  wealthy  family."  Oh,  no,  money 
didn't  enter  into  it. 

Again,  "  They  had  also  perfected  the  plan  for 
securing" — what?  The  thrill?  The  excitement? 
"  They  had  also  perfected  the  plan  for  securing  the 
money.  The  victim's  father  was  to  be  told  to 
put  the  money  in  a  cigar  box."  I  won't  go  on  with 
that,  because  your  Honor  is  familiar  with  the 
details. 

Again,  on  page  107,  the  doctors  say,  continuing 
with  Loeb:  "  We  got  the  boy  and  disposed  of  him 
as  planned  on  Wednesday.  We  returned  the  car 
to  the  agency  at  4:30."  And  the  doctors  remark  in 
parenthesis,  "  At  this  point  he  choked  up  and  he 
wiped  his  nose  with  his  fingers.  He  wiped  away 
the  tears."    No  emotion? 

The  other  fellow  hasn't  any  emotions  either,  your 
Honor,  none  at  all.  He  drove  them  all  out  when  he 
was  seven  or  eight  or  nine  or  ten  years  of  age,  at 
the  same  time  he  passed  God  out  of  his  heart.  Well, 
let's  see  what  Dickie  says  about  it:  "I  had  quite  a 
time  quieting  down  my  associate  (after  the  mur- 
der). I  cooled  him  down  in  five  minutes,  after  we 
got  him  (Bobby  Franks)  into  the  back  seat  think- 
ing he  was  alive.    I  got  calmer  while  quieting  my 

279 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

associate.  Franks  was  hit  on  the  head  several  times. 
My  associate  said,  '  This  is  terrible,  this  is  ter- 
rible.' " 

I  will  tell  your  Honor,  if  you  don't  think  they 
have  emotions,  of  another  instance.  Some  of  us 
didn't  think  that  Harvey  Church  had.  He  told  his 
story  with  the  air  of  braggadocio,  and  he  gloated, 
apparently,  while  he  was  telling  the  authorities  how 
tough  a  fellow  he  was.  But  when  he  was  told  to 
begin  his  march  to  the  gallows,  they  carried  him 
there  in  a  stupor. 

And  if  it  is  the  fate  of  these  two  cowardly  per- 
verts that  they  must  pay  the  penalty  of  this  crime 
upon  the  gallows,  when  they  realize  it,  you  will 
find  that  they  have  emotions,  and  you  will  find  they 
have  fear,  and  you  will  find  they  will  have  to  be 
carried  to  the  gallows. 

Cold-blooded?  How  did  they  put  this  poor  little 
Franks  boy  into  the  culvert?  There  is  that  little 
dead  body,  naked,  and  after  they  shoved  it  in  they 
kicked  it  in.  And,  according  to  Loeb,  "  Unfor- 
tunately the  body  was  not  kicked  far  enough  into 
this  hole,  because  a  foot  remained  protruding,  vis- 
ible to  a  passer-by." 

That  was  the  only  unfortunate  thing  about  this, 
that  a  foot  stuck  out.  The  body  was  found  the  next 
day;  and  they  are  sitting  before  your  Honor  on  a 
plea  of  guilty  to  this  murder. 

On  page  no:  "He  first  stated  that  he  got  more 
of  a  kick  out  of  discussing  it  with  his  own  family; 

280 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

but  later  changed  his  statement,  and  said  that  he 
felt  he  got  a  little  less  kick,  because  he  had  some 
slight  remorse.  His  mother  said  that  whoever  did 
it  should  be  tarred  and  feathered." 

What  does  that  mean?  A  mob  ought  to  take 
him?  We  have  heard  Mr.  Darrow  talk  repeatedly 
of  the  hoarse  cry  of  the  angry  mob.  There  is  no 
danger  or  fear  about  hearing  the  hoarse  cry  of  the 
angry  mob,  if  the  extreme  penalty  is  visited  here. 
I  am  not  so  sure,  otherwise. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  the  patient  was  a  little 
worried  "  —  well,  what  is  worry?  Worry  is  an 
emotion,  the  same  as  fear,  the  same  as  love. 
"  Worried  by  the  attitude  of  his  father." 

Now,  let  us  find  out  how  he  has  acted  in  jail.  On 
page  114:  ''He  has  shown  nothing  unusual  in  his 
behavior  in  jail." 

Of  course,  after  this  report  had  been  given  to  the 
lawyers  and  the  doctors  from  the  East,  they  had  to 
add  to  it  a  little  bit,  just  as  they  did  about  the 
epilepsy,  and  Doc  White  brought  in  a  lot  of  things 
that  are  not  in  this  report,  and  some  one  else  brought 
the  unusual  conduct  of  the  defendant  while  he  was 
in  jail,  wearing  an  old  coat,  and  so  on.  But  these 
two  doctors,  when  the  defense  was  young  and  had 
not  matured,  say  he  showed  nothing  unusual  in  his 
behavior  in  jail. 

"  His  life  is  quiet  and  well  ordered.  Eats  and 
sleeps  well,  even  going  to  sleep  while  his  associate 
was  being  examined  in  the  same  room." 

281 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dr.  Krohn  has  been  criticized  for  saying  that 
these  defendants  were  correctly  oriented  in  all  three 
manners.  Let  us  see  what  their  doctors  say:  "He 
is  correctly  oriented  in  the  three  spheres." 

He  knows  his  name,  he  knows  where  he  is,  he 
knows  what  is  going  on. 

"  He  takes  a  lively  interest  in  the  jail  routine,  and 
in  the  affairs  of  other  prisoners,  speaking  of  their 
crimes  and  their  prospects  in  the  usual  jail  phraseol- 
ogy, '  Such  and  so-and-so  will  get  the  rope,'  or  '  I 
think  so-and-so  will  get  the  street.'  " 

Is  there  anything  in  his  conduct  in  the  jail  that 
those  doctors  discovered  to  indicate  a  boy  who 
wants  to  do  a  mad  act?  Or  is  it  just  the  conduct  of 
normal  people,  people  who  are  responsible  to  the 
law  for  their  violations  of  it? 

Your  Honor,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  one 
or  two  little  things  which  show  that  this  was  not  a 
purposeless  crime  of  mad  boys  traveling  around  in 
a  dream.  On  page  105  of  the  Hulbert-Bowman 
report,  the  doctors  say:  "  The  boys  arranged  to 
have  their  rented  car,  with  a  black  cloth  over  the 
license  plate,  backed  up  to  the  tracks,  at  the  place 
where  the  box  would  be  thrown.  They  had  timed 
the  train;  they  had  arranged  that  if  the  train  was 
late,  it  probably  meant  that  there  had  been  some 
flaws  in  their  plans,  and  that  the  father  had  sought 
aid,  whereupon  they  would  drive  away  in  the  car 
and  not  wait  for  the  train." 

Planning,  deliberating,  working  out  the  most 
282 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

minute  details,  they  were  perfectly  assured  that 
their  plans  were  so  perfect  that  they  themselves 
would  never  be  suspected,  and  of  course  would 
never  be  apprehended. 

And  nothing,  in  my  judgment,  but  an  act  of  God, 
an  act  of  Providence,  is  responsible  for  the  unravel- 
ing of  this  terrible  crime.  I  think  that  when  the 
glasses  that  Leopold  had  not  worn  for  three  months, 
glasses  that  he  no  longer  needed,  dropped  from  his 
pocket  at  night,  the  hand  of  God  was  at  work  in 
this  case.  He  may  not  have  believed  in  a  God. 
But,  if  he  has  listened  and  paid  attention  and 
thought  as  the  evidence  was  unfolded,  he  must  begin 
to  believe  there  is  a  God  now. 

I  have  referred  to  the  fact  that  they  tried  to 
create  an  impression  that  when  the  doctors  were 
examining  them  they  were  perfectly  frank,  they 
cooperated,  they  did  not  lie,  they  did  not  distort, 
they  did  not  hold  back  any  evidence,  and  that  is 
the  sworn  testimony  of  the  three  doctors  from  the 
East. 

Let  us  find  out  whether  that  is  true  or  not.  I 
suspected  and  I  tried  to  get  them  to  admit  on  cross- 
examination  that  boys  of  superior  education  and 
intellect,  boys  who  could  plan  a  crime  of  this  sort 
stretching  over  a  period  of  six  months  and  attend 
to  every  minute  detail,  boys  who  showed  such  an 
abandoned  and  malignant  heart  as  the  facts  in  this 
case  show  that  they  possessed,  might  possibly,  when 
caught  like  rats,  lie  just  a  little  bit  to  friendly  doc- 

283 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

tors  who  were  trying  to  build  up  a  defense  for  them 
to  save  their  worthless  lives.  Oh,  no,  that  is  im- 
possible. Everything  they  told  us  was  true.  They 
withheld  nothing.  They  distorted  nothing.  They 
suppressed  nothing. 

Well,  let's  see  what  they  say  about  it  in  the  report 
that  was  intended  to  be  a  secret  report  and  was  not 
to  fall  into  your  hands  or  mine.  On  page  1 1 5,  if  your 
Honor  please,  in  a  friendly  psychiatric  examination: 
"  The  boy  is  apparently  frank,  but  is  not  absolutely 
so,  sometimes  distorting  his  statements,  but  without 
anything  to  indicate  it,  and  sometimes  suppresses 
much  data." 

I  wonder  whether  it  is  possible  they  did  fool  Old 
Doc  Yak  from  Washington,  and  I  wonder  whether 
it  was  necessary  to  fool  him. 

Back  to  the  motive  again,  on  page  ii6:  "He  had 
no  hatred  toward  the  boy.  As  the  hate  of  his  first 
planned  victim  disappeared,  the  excitement  of  plan- 
ning grew,  and  money  developed  as  an  afterthought. 
Neither  he  nor  his  associate  would  have  done  it 
without  the  money.  That  extra  $5,000  would  have 
been  his  security."  And  then  the  doctor,  quoting 
the  language  of  Loeb  in  quotation  marks,  says: 
"  And  $5,000  is  $5,000." 

Have  they  any  interest  in  the  money?  On  page 
118,  your  Honor:  "We  anticipated  especially  the 
money,"  in  the  language  of  Loeb,  and  then  the  doc- 
tor adds  in  parenthesis,  "  Facial  expression  of  inter- 
est."   "  We  thought  we  had  it  all  so  cleverly  worked 

284 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

out,  and  we  felt  certain  at  not  being  caught,  or  we 
would  not  have  gone  into  it." 

Is  that  the  mad  talk  of  a  mad  man  or  a  mad  boy? 
Or  is  that  the  cold-blooded  reasoning  of  a  man  who 
is  a  criminal,  with  a  criminal  heart  and  a  superior 
intelligence  and  education? 

"  I  had  considered  the  possibility  of  being  caught 
and  I  was  afraid  my  father,  a  sick  man,  could  not 
stand  the  shock,  but  I  felt  so  certain  of  not  being 
caught  that  we  went  on  with  it."  No  emotion. 
Just  a  machine.  And  yet  again,  on  page  ii8,  if 
your  Honor  please,  the  doctor  says:  "  He  expressed 
remorse."  At  what?  At  his  being  caught.  The 
only  one  that  he  is  concerned  in,  in  his  scheme  of 
life,  is  himself. 

"  I  asked  him  if  he  would  go  through  this  plan 
again  if  he  felt  certain  he  would  not  be  discovered. 
He  replied:  '  I  believe  I  would,  if  I  could  get  the 
money.'  The  patient's  attention  was  called  to  a 
newspaper  account  of  an  interview  with  Mrs. 
Franks,  the  mother  of  the  victim,  in  which  she  stated 
she  had  no  desire  to  see  the  boys  hanged,  but  would 
like  to  talk  to  them  to  know  whether  the  boy  suf- 
fered in  his  last  moments.  The  patient  was  asked 
whether  it  would  upset  him  at  all  to  talk  with  Mrs. 
Franks.  He  replied,  he  thought  it  would  upset  him 
a  little,  and  make  him  feel  sad.  He  said  when  he 
read  this  interview  in  the  paper,  '  My  first  feeling 
was  joy.' " 

Joy  at  what?    "  '  That  it  might  help  us,  her  not 

28s 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

feeling  vindictive.  Then  a  little  remorse,  not  much, 
perhaps  a  little  bit.'  " 

His  emotions  respond  not  much  when  he  thinks 
of  the  suffering  of  Mrs.  Franks;  but  when  he  thinks 
that  her  statement  might  save  his  neck,  he  expe- 
riences great  joy.    No  emotion? 

Again,  on  page  119:  "The  patient  stated  that 
although  he  had  no  feeling  of  remorse  about  the 
crime,  he  felt  very,  very  sorry  about  it  for  his 
family's  sake,  because  it  might  cause  them  distress. 
'  I  would  be  willing  to  increase  the  chance  of  my 
hanging  to  save  the  family  from  believing  that  I 
was  the  archfiend.  My  folks  have  probably  had  the 
blow  softened  by  blaming  him  (Leopold)  and  his 
folks  by  blaming  me;  but  before  I  decide  to  take 
the  responsibility  in  order  to  save  my  family,  I  must 
consult  with  my  elder  brother.'  " 

Everything  he  said  and  told  the  doctors,  he  told 
it  on  advice;  and  repeatedly  this  report  demon- 
strates that. 

There  has  been  some  talk  here,  in  order  to  make 
him  appear  to  be  mad,  that  he  even  contemplated 
killing  his  little  brother  Tommy,  or  killing  his 
father.  The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  that 
is  just  thrown  in  for  good  measure,  that  it  has  no 
foundation  in  fact  at  all.  It  is  another  piece  of 
perjury  manufactured  in  order  to  build  a  foundation 
for  a  perjured  insanity  defense. 

On  page  120,  if  your  Honor  please,  when  ques- 
tioned about  his  attitude  toward  his   family,  the 

286 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

questioning  was  directed  toward  the  possibility  of 
some  of  them  having  been  considered  as  the  victim 
of  this  superior  crime.  It  does  not  emanate  from 
him,  and  it  does  not  emanate  from  Leopold.  The 
doctor  suggested  it  to  him.  "  The  questioning  was 
directed  toward  the  possibility  of  some  of  them  hav- 
ing been  considered.  He  described  having  in  a  jok- 
ing way  proposed  that  his  own  younger  brother 
Tommy  be  the  victim,  and  his  associate  jokingly 
agreed  with  it ;  but  they  gave  up  the  idea  because  it 
was  not  practical,  for  this  reason:  that  Tommy  hav- 
ing disappeared,  the  patient  would  have  to  be  at 
home,  and  with  the  family,  during  the  period  of  the 
hunt,  and  could  not  be  footloose  to  carry  out  the 
plans  of  securing  the  ransom  money.  '  I  couldn't 
have  done  it,  because  I  am  tremendously  fond  of 
him.'  " 

Emotion;  love.  After  this  had  been  suggested  to 
him,  still  they  thought  of  money,  money,  money. 
If  they  kidnaped  one  of  the  fathers  he  asked  who 
would  furnish  the  money.  They  thought  again  that 
it  was  not  practicable,  that  there  would  be  no  one 
to  furnish  the  money. 

Again,  on  page  121,  if  your  Honor  please:  "  He 
had  proposed  that  with  his  associate,  and  with  his 
associate  had  contemplated,  using  Dick  Rubel,  a 
very  close  friend  of  the  patient  and  his  associate, 
toward  whom  neither  the  patient  nor  his  associate 
had  any  ill  feeling,  or  grudge,  as  a  victim."  On  page 
122 :  "  The  plan  of  kidnaping  Dick  Rubel  was  given 

287 


Th&  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

up,  because  Dick  Rubel's  father  was  so  tight  we 
might  not  get  any  money  from  him." 

And,  also,  another  reason  —  it  runs  all  through. 
First,  the  necessity  of  getting  the  money,  and,  sec- 
ond, the  necessity  of  avoiding  detection.  And  on 
page  122:  "And,  furthermore,  they  might  be  sus- 
pected, because  they  were  such  close  friends,  and 
associated  so  much  with  him.  Therefore,  they  would 
be  sure  to  be  questioned  if  Dick  Rubel  should 
disappear." 

Now,  I  told  your  Honor  about  A,  B,  C  and  D,  that 
these  doctors  decided  that  it  was  forensically  inad- 
visable to  go  into,  and  for  that  reason  they  did  not 
go  into  it.  I  told  you  at  that  time  that  I  would 
prove  by  this  report  that  Loeb  had  committed  major 
crimes,  four  of  them,  that  he  would  not  even  tell 
his  lawyers  about,  that  he  would  not  tell  the  doc- 
tors about,  and  that  they  concluded  it  was  a  bad 
thing  to  make  inquiry  about;  that  Leopold  knew 
about  these;  and  that  Loeb  was  afraid  of  Leopold; 
that  he  contemplated  killing  him  so  that  he  would 
not  be  in  his  power. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  the  evidence  is  on  that. 
"  The  patient  and  his  associate  were  on  very  inti- 
mate terms,  but  the  patient  stated  that  his  associate 
often  stated  that  he  would  never  entirely  trust  the 
patient,  since  the  time  the  associate  had  found  the 
patient  was  taking  unfair  financial  advantage  of 
him."  Or,  in  other  words,  that  he  did  not  have  the 
honor  that  is  supposed  to  exist  among  thieves ;  Loeb 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

was  robbing  Leopold.  "  In  a  way,  I  have  always 
been  sort  of  afraid  of  him.  He  intimidated  me  by 
threatening  to  expose  me,  and  I  could  not  stand  it." 
And  on  page  123:  "  Of  late  the  patient,  Loeb,  had 
often  thought  of  the  possibility  of  shooting  his  asso- 
ciate." He  was  afraid  of  Leopold,  he  was  afraid 
that  Leopold  might  tell  of  A,  B,  C  and  D. 

And  again,  on  page  123,  your  Honor:  "  He  often 
contemplated  shooting  his  associate  when  they  were 
out  together  and  they  had  the  associate's  revolvers 
along.  He  thought  of  pointing  the  revolver  at  his 
associate  and  shooting  him.  He  denied  ever  having 
thought  of  hitting  him  over  the  head  with  a  chisel. 
'  The  idea  of  murdering  a  fellow,  especially  alone, 
I  don't  think  I  could  have  done  it.  If  I  could  have 
snapped  my  fingers  and  made  him  pass  away  in  a 
heart  attack,  I  would  have  done  it.'  " 

Now  we  can  understand  why  the  doctors  in  their 
testimony  suppressed  this  part  of  the  testimony. 
Now  we  can  understand  what  A,  B,  C  and  D  are. 
On  page  124:  "One  reason  why  he  never  mur- 
dered "  Leopold  —  the  report  says  "  associate  "  — 
''  was  that  he  felt  that  he  would  be  suspected  and 
there  was  no  very  safe  way  of  doing  it." 

I  have  demonstrated  by  their  own  evidence,  your 
Honor,  that  money  was  the  underlying  motive  of  the 
whole  thing,  and  that  they  were  not  going  to  kill 
anybody  if  they  thought  there  was  a  possibility  of 
being  caught.  They  did  not  kill  the  first  man  they 
had  in  mind  because  he  was  a  larger  man  than 

289 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

they.  Always  that  concern  about  their  own  precious 
hides. 

And  one  reason  why  he  did  not  kill  Leopold  was 
because  he  knew  of  no  safe  way  of  doing  it  and  he 
might  have  been  suspected.  Well,  it  might  have 
been  a  good  thing  if  he  could  have  planned  a  safe 
way  to  kill  Leopold  as  he  did  to  kill  Bobby  Franks 
and  then  have  stopped  there,  or  he  might  have  car- 
ried it  a  little  further  and  committed  suicide.  The 
community  might  have  been  grieved  but  I  do  not 
think  it  would  have  lasted  long. 

"  In  connection  with  this  he  had  often  contem- 
plated murdering  his  associate  and  securing  a  new 
pal." 

Somebody  who  would  have  nothing  on  him. 

"  He  states  that  he  had  often  contemplated  hitting 
his  associate  over  the  head  with  a  pistol,  later  shoot- 
ing him,  breaking  the  crystal  of  his  watch,  robbing 
him,  leaving  things  in  a  way  to  create  the  effect 
that  his  associate  had  been  robbed  but  there  had 
been  a  struggle  and  he  had  been  killed  during  the 
struggle." 

Money,  and  his  opinion  of  the  power  of  money. 
He  thought  that  on  account  of  his  millions  or  his 
father's  millions  he  was  above  the  law.  He  be- 
lieved that  you  cannot  hang  a  million  dollars  in 
Cook  County  no  matter  how  dastardly  the  crime. 
Well,  I  disagree  with  him.  I  think  the  law  is  su- 
perior to  money. 

I  direct  your  Honor's  attention  to  page  126:  "He 
290 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

contemplated  escape  from  jail,  but  he  does  not 
want  to  do  this  for  it  would  distress  his  family  to 
have  him  disappear  and  to  be  known  either  as  a 
criminal  or  an  insane  person.  Before  he  decides  to 
escape  he  wanted  to  discuss  this  with  his  older 
brother  Allen.  He  thinks" — and  this  is  his  phi- 
losophy, and  I  don't  know  but  what  it  was  quite  a 
coincidence  that  one  of  the  books  he  took  to  the 
Morrison  Hotel  was  the  "  Influence  of  Wealth  on 
Imperial  Rome,"  but  it  is  his  philosophy  here,  your 
Honor  —  "He  thinks  an  escape  could  be  managed 
by  spending  a  few  thousand  dollars  by  bribing  the 
guards  of  the  jail  and  by  some  one  giving  him  a 
gun.  He  says  that,  without  any  swagger,  as  though 
it  were  only  a  matter  of  careful  detailed  planning 
which  his  mind  can  do.  He  has  not  made  plans  as 
to  where  he  should  go  should  he  escape."  Then  the 
doctors  add:  ''It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
Tommy  O'Connor,  one  of  the  most  desperate  and 
one  of  the  most  intelligent  criminals  Chicago  has 
ever  known,  did  a  most  successful  jail  delivery  from 
this  jail  within  the  last  few  years." 

What  a  feeling  of  comfort  and  security  mothers 
and  fathers  of  this  town  would  have,  with  their 
children  going  back  and  forth  upon  the  streets  of 
Chicago  to  school,  and  these  two  mad  dogs  at 
large. 

Let  us  find  out  about  this  superman  stuff.  Page 
127:  "  He  often  discussed  morals  with  his  associate, 
who  insisted  to  him  that  the  only  wrong  he,  the 

291 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

patient,  can  do  is  to  make  a  mistake,  that  anything 
that  gives  him  pleasure  is  right  for  him  to  do." 

Let's  find  out  what  judgment  and  credence  Loeb 
pays  to  that  statement.  He  knew  Leopold,  and  he 
knew  when  Leopold  was  joking  and  he  knew  when 
he  was  in  earnest,  and  when  he  talked  about  the 
superman  theory,  he  says:  "  I  took  it  with  a  great 
big  dose  of  salt."  But  the  doctors  swallowed  it  as 
if  it  was  sugar.  Any  emotion?  Page  128:  "He  says 
he  is  now  sorry  for  his  present  predicament."  It 
reminds  me  of  a  fellow  who  killed  his  wife  some 
years  ago  and  when  his  lawyer  went  in  to  talk  to 
him  he  had  no  defense  on  earth.  At  that  time  these 
nameless  insanity  diseases  were  not  thought  of  and 
it  looked  as  if  this  fellow  was  going  to  hang,  and  he 
afterwards  did,  and  he  told  the  lawyer  with  tears 
running  down  his  cheeks,  "  You  know  there  isn't 
anybody  in  town  who  feels  as  bad  about  this  as 
I  do." 

There  isn't  anybody  in  town  that  feels  as  bad  as 
Loeb  does  about  his  present  predicament  for  his 
family's  sake.  He  says  he  should  be  sorrier.  He 
says  it  is  wrong.  He  doesn't  know  what  should  be 
done  to  him.  He  felt  that  the  law  should  take  its 
course  unless  he  could  avoid  it  in  some  other  way. 
One  hurdle  at  a  time  is  his  theory  and  Darrow's 
theory,  to  beat  the  rope.  Talk  about  life  imprison- 
ment in  the  penitentiary.  Escape  if  you  can  and 
if  you  cannot  the  same  arguments  that  we  made  to 
save  your  necks  we  will  make  to  the  Board  of  Par- 

292 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

dons  or  the  Governor  and  get  you  out.  He  would 
repeat  maybe  if  he  knew  he  would  not  be  discovered. 
Is  that  mitigation,  your  Honor?  All  the  way 
through  this  report  runs  the  statement:  ''  I  would 
kill  again  if  I  thought  I  would  get  away  with  it," 
and  they  offer  that  in  mitigation  for  a  murder. 

"  When  he  and  his  associate  quarreled  in  March 
the  patient  considered  securing  another  friend  for 
his  criminal  operations.  He  actually  hinted  con- 
cerning this  to  his  friend,  but  as  he  met  with  no 
favorable  response  he  did  not  press  the  matter 
further.  As  he  had  considered  that  he  and  his  as- 
sociate would  be  no  longer  together  after  June  of 
this  year  "  (that  is  when  Leopold  would  be  in  Eu- 
rope) "  he  had  thought  of  other  ways  of  continuing 
his  career  of  crime."  (A,  B,  C,  D,  and  the  Franks 
murder  is  E!)  "  One  idea  was  to  rent  a  room  in  a 
bad  neighborhood  and  hang  around  poolrooms  and 
meet  criminals.  He  had  also  considered  becoming 
a  clever  financial  criminal." 

Money,  money,  money;  not  thrill,  not  excitement. 
A  clever  financial  criminal,  after  he  finished  his  law 
courses.  He  stated  that  he  had  considered  crimes 
similar  to  that  of  Koretz,  who  had  put  through  a 
gigantic  stock  swindle.  If  Mr.  Darrow  had  read 
this,  I  think  he  would  have  blamed  Koretz  for  this 
murder. 

Heredity,  finally  Mr.  Darrow  says;  the  family,  or 
some  ancestor  away  back,  planted  the  seed  here. 
Hereditary  influence.     Well,  let's  see  what  their 

293 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

doctors  say,  on  page  139:  "  There  is  nothing  about 
the  patient's  condition  to  show  any  evidence  of  a 
hereditary  nature,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  to  suppose  that  a  condition  of  this  kind  will 
be  transmitted  to  future  generations  by  any  of  his 
relatives.  This  condition  is  acquired  within  the  life 
history  of  the  individual,  and  dies  out  when  he  dies. 
There  is  nothing  elicited  from  a  most  careful  and 
painstaking  history  from  all  possible  sources,  to  sug- 
gest that  the  family,  either  by  omission  or  commis- 
sion, contributed  toward  his  delinquencies  in  the 
way  they  trained  this  boy." 

Continuing  with  the  Bowman-Hulbert  report  on 
page  100  —  and  here  the  person  talking  is  Leopold, 
and  not  Loeb:  "  The  reason  why  they  agreed  to 
strangle  the  victim  with  a  rope,  to  their  mind,  was 
that  that  would  make  them  equally  guilty  of  the 
crime.  It  was  not  with  any  idea  of  close  friendship 
or  brotherhood;  it  was,  rather,  the  opposite.  The 
patient  did  not  like  the  idea  of  strangling  the  victim, 
and  suggested  chloroforming  him;  but  his  compan- 
ion would  not  agree  to  this." 

In  other  words,  all  this  king-and-slave  fantasy  is 
a  pure  figment  of  the  imagination  of  the  defense. 
The  real  tie  that  binds  in  this  case  is  that  one  was  a 
criminal  and  the  other  had  something  on  him.  He 
was  afraid  of  exposure;  he  contemplated  murder- 
ing him;  and  the  other  one  blackmailed  him,  in  the 
manner  that  I  have  already  indicated. 

Loeb  wanted  to  shut  the  mouth  of  Leopold,  and 
294 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

then  break  with  him.  Leopold  had  enough  on  him, 
on  A,  B,  C  and  D,  and  that  is  why  he  wanted 
Leopold  to  help  him  choke  the  life  out  of  little 
Bobby  Franks. 

Again,  on  page  loo:  "  Considerable  trouble  was 
experienced  in  perfecting  a  plan  whereby  they  could 
secure  "  —  what?  The  thrill?  No  —  "  the  money, 
without  exposing  themselves  to  too  much  danger  of 
being  apprehended."  And  again,  on  page  loo: 
"  They  wanted  to  divide  the  $10,000  ransom  money 
equally." 

No  emotion  in  the  superman  Leopold?  No,  he 
killed  all  his  emotions  before  he  came  into  court 
on  the  advice  of  counsel  and  the  advice  of  doctors. 
But  on  page  102 :  *'  It  was  necessary  to  hit  the  vic- 
tim several  times  over  the  head  and  he  bled  some. 
This  upset  the  patient  a  great  deal.  He  said  to  his 
companion,  '  My  God,  this  is  awful.'  He  experi- 
enced a  sinking  feehng  in  the  pit  of  his  stomach. 
His  hands  trembled,  he  lost  some  of  his  self-control. 
His  companion,  however,  laughed  and  joked  and 
helped  the  patient  to  get  back  his  self-control." 

When  they  got  to  the  culvert  they  found  the  boy 
had  already  died  and  they  could  not  carry  out  their 
original  scheme  of  strangling  him  with  a  rope. 
Again,  on  page  108:  "Asked  if  he  would  commit 
another  such  a  crime  if  he  were  certain  that  he 
could  escape  detection,  he  replied,  '  I  would  not 
commit  another  such  a  crime  because  I  realize  that 
no  one  can  ever  be  sure  of  escaping  detection.'  " 

295 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

On  page  io8,  we  learn  that  before  he  knew  that  he 
would  have  to  chloroform  his  emotion  and  let  intel- 
lect walk  into  the  court  alone,  he  stated  that  he  is 
rather  fond  of  small  children,  that  he  always  wanted 
to  take  a  crying  child  into  his  arms  and  comfort  it. 
On  such  occasions  he  almost  noticed  a  functioning 
of  his  lachrymal  glands. 

"  While  in  the  jail  the  patient  has  clearly  been 
under  considerable  emotional  tension,  and  is  rather 
irritable  at  times." 

"  The  patient  ordinarily  is  able  to  make  a  calm 
and  self-possessed  appearance,  and  before  reporters 
and  visitors  seems  perfectly  self-possessed  and  un- 
concerned. On  the  other  hand,  when  he  does  not 
feel  the  need  for  doing  it,  and  when  he  is  talking 
frankly  with  people  and  no  longer  posing,  he  shows 
a  good  deal  of  irritability  and  nervous  tension." 

When  he  is  not  posing  to  prepare  a  defense  based 
on  the  fact  that  he  has  no  emotion,  these  doctors  say 
he  shows  a  great  deal  of  emotion.  He  wouldn't  lie 
either.  Why,  your  Honor,  it  really  would  be  too 
bad  if  these  two  young  fellows  imposed  on  Old  Doc 
Yak.  I  showed  to  you  what  Loeb  said  he  would  do, 
I  showed  to  you  in  this  report  what  he  has  done. 
He  has  lied  repeatedly  to  the  doctors.  He  has  lied 
under  advice  of  counsel  and  family.  He  has  sup- 
pressed and  distorted. 

Let's  see  what  Leopold  said  he  would  do.  On 
page  109:  "  He  seems  to  be  reasonably  frank  dur- 
ing the  examination,  particularly  with  regard  to  his 

296 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

own  feelings  and  emotions  and  his  estimate  of  him- 
self. On  the  other  hand,  he  undoubtedly  omits  cer- 
tain data  regarding  some  of  his  past  experiences. 
He  lied  rather  plausibly  at  times.  Later,  when  he 
realized  that  it  was  known  that  he  was  lying,  he 
appeared  perfectly  unconcerned.  A  number  of  times 
he  inquired  whether  his  story  agreed  with  his  com- 
panion's, and  seemed  to  show  a  great  deal  of  con- 
cern about  this  matter." 

He  wanted  to  know  whether  they  had  both  learned 
their  lesson  in  the  same  manner  from  their  in- 
structors and  whether  they  were  both  telling  the 
same  story.  '■'■  In  fact,  he  did  this  so  crudely  that 
it  was  apparent  that  he  was  concerned  lest  there  be 
some  failure  of  their  stories  to  coincide." 

In  other  words,  both  of  them  are  lying,  both  of 
them  have  lied,  both  have  suppressed  things  and 
hidden  them  from  their  doctors,  and  they  had  to 
do  it  in  order  to  give  a  basis  to  that  insanity  de- 
fense here. 

Money!  On  page  iii:  "They  also  considered 
kidnaping  their  respective  fathers,  but  this  idea 
never  got  very  far  because  the  immediate  objection 
of  securing  the  money  came  to  their  minds." 

Money  is  always  uppermost  in  their  minds  when 
they  talk  about  this  kidnaping,  and  the  murder,  as 
I  have  explained,  is  an  afterthought,  in  order  to  pro- 
tect themselves.  Psychiatric  observations!  We 
live  and  learn. 

"  Patient's  (Leopold's)  intellectual  functions  are 
297 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

intact  and  he  is  quite  obviously  an  individual  of 
high  intelligence.  He  is  correctly  oriented,  and  in 
excellent  contact  with  his  surroundings.'' 

The  same  argument  was  made  by  Mr.  Darrow 
with  reference  to  Leopold  as  was  made  about  Loeb. 
First  he  began  to  blame  the  old  German  philosopher 
Nietzsche,  although  every  student  in  every  uni- 
versity for  the  last  2  5  years  has  read  his  philosophy. 
And  then  I  guess  he  thought  that  would  not  do  be- 
cause if  reading  this  philosophy  would  be  an  excuse 
for  this  crime,  how  about  the  countless  thousands 
who  have  gone  before  and  who  are  still  reading  this 
philosophy  who  lead  decent,  honorable  lives?  He 
did  not  have  a  poor  old  nurse  in  this  case  to  blame, 
and  he  was  not  quite  satisfied  in  blaming  some  re- 
mote ancestor,  so  he  blames  their  parents,  re- 
spectable, decent,  law-abiding  citizens.  The  only 
unfortunate  thing  that  ever  came  into  their  lives  was 
to  have  a  snake  like  Leopold  in  that  decent  family. 
Casting  blame  where  blame  was  not  due,  but  where 
sympathy  should  go  out  as  it  does  go  out  from  the 
heart  of  every  person  in  this  community,  to  the  re- 
spected families  of  these  men. 

But  Darrow  says,  "  No.  Save  your  sympathy  for 
the  boys.  Do  not  place  the  blame  on  the  boys. 
Place  it  on  their  families.  This  is  the  result  of 
heredity." 

Well,  let  us  see  what  the  doctors  say:  "  However, 
it  might  be  said  that  our  present  degree  of  knowl- 
edge gives  us  no  reason  to  feel  that  a  mental  con- 

298 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

dition  such  as  the  patient's  is  of  an  hereditary 
nature,  or  that  it  will  appear  in  future  generations. 
The  family  have  apparently  endeavored  to  do  every- 
thing possible  to  bring  the  patient  up  in  a  suitable 
manner,  and  there  has  been  no  conscious  error  or 
neglect  on  their  part." 

Well,  so  much  for  the  medical  defense  in  this 
case. 

Your  Honor,  ]\Ir.  Darrow  has  read  to  you  poetry. 
May  I  be  permitted,  for  a  few  moments,  to  read  you 
some  prose? 

The  White  House,  Washington,  D.  C,  August  8,  1904. 

The  application  for  commutation  of  sentence  of  John 
W.  Burley  is  denied.  This  man  committed  the  most 
heinous  crime  known  to  our  laws.  Twice  before  he 
has  committed  crimes  of  a  similar,  but  less  terrible 
character.  In  my  judgment  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
for  paying  heed  to  the  allegations  that  he  is  not  of  sound 
mind,  —  allegations  made  after  the  trial  and  the  con- 
viction. 

Nobody  would  pretend  that  there  has  ever  been  any 
such  degree  of  mental  unsoundness  shown  as  would  make 
people  even  consider  sending  him  to  an  asylum  if  he  had 
not  committed  this  crime.  Under  such  circumstances,  he 
should  certainly  be  esteemed  sane  enough  to  suffer  the 
penalty  for  his  monstrous  deed.  I  have  scant  sympathy 
with  the  plea  of  insanity  advanced  to  save  a  man  from 
the  consequences  of  crime  when,  unless  that  crime  had 
been  committed,  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  per- 
suade any  reasonable  authority  to  commit  him  to  an 
asylum  as  insane.  Among  the  most  dangerous  criminals, 
and  especially  among  those  prone  to  commit  this  partic- 

299 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

ular  kind  of  offense,  there  are  plenty  of  a  temper  so 
fiendish  or  brutal  as  to  be  incompatible  with  any  other 
than  a  brutish  order  of  intelligence;  but  these  men  are 
nevertheless  responsible  for  their  acts;  and  nothing 
more  tends  to  encourage  crime  among  such  men  than  the 
belief  that  through  the  plea  of  insanity  or  any  other 
method  it  is  possible  for  them  to  escape  paying  the  just 
penalty  of  their  crimes.  The  crime  in  question  is  one  to 
the  existence  of  which  we  largely  owe  the  existence  of 
that  spirit  of  lawlessness  which  takes  form  in  lynching. 
It  is  a  crime  so  revolting  that  the  criminal  is  not  entitled 
to  one  particle  of  sympathy  from  any  human  being.  It 
is  essential  that  punishment  for  it  should  be  not  only  as 
certain  but  as  swift  as  possible.  The  jury  in  this  case 
did  their  duty  by  recommending  the  infliction  of  the 
death  penalty.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  do  not  have 
special  provision  for  more  summary  dealing  with  this 
type  of  cases. 

The  more  we  do  what  in  us  lies  to  secure  a  certain 
and  swift  justice  in  dealing  with  these  cases,  the  more 
effectively  do  we  work  against  the  growth  of  that  lynch- 
ing spirit  which  is  so  full  of  evil  omen  for  these  people, 
because  it  seeks  to  avenge  one  infamous  crime  by  the 
commission  of  another  of  equal  infamy.  The  applica- 
tion is  denied,  and  the  sentence  will  be  carried  into  effect. 

And  in  the  case  at  bar,  your  Honor,  no  one  ever 
suspected  that  these  defendants  were  mentally  dis- 
eased until  after  lawyers  were  retained  to  defend 
them  and  when  there  was  no  escape  on  the  facts. 

If  I  had  taken  them  into  custody  on  the  twentieth 
of  May  and  had  attempted  to  have  them  committed 
to  an  insane  asylum,  their  lawyers,  their  doctors  and 
their  families  would  have  been  here  and  there  would 

300 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

have  been  only  one  crazy  man  in  the  court  room, 
namely,  the  State's  Attorney. 

I  submit,  if  your  Honor  please,  that  it  is  safer  to 
follow  the  philosophy  of  Theodore  Roosevelt  as  he 
laid  it  down  in  this  great  State  paper,  when  he  was 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  was  only  con- 
cerned with  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  than  it  is 
to  follow  the  weird  and  uncanny  philosophy  of  the 
paid  advocate  of  the  defense,  whose  business  it  is 
to  make  murder  safe  in  Cook  County. 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  Mr.  Darrow  argued 
that  the  State  had  advanced  the  silly  argument  that 
these  boys  were  gamblers,  and  they  gambled  for 
high  stakes;  and  he  said  the  only  evidence  we  had 
to  predicate  such  a  charge  on  was  the  testimony  of 
Leon  Mandel,  who  had  played  one  game  of  bridge 
with  them  and  who  said  that  in  that  game  they 
played  for  five  or  ten  cents  a  point.  The  trouble 
with  Mr.  Darrow  is  that  he  does  not  know  all 
the  facts  in  this  case;  he  does  not  know  all  the  evi- 
dence. 

I  thank  God  that  I  am  not  a  great  pleader;  be- 
cause I  think  sometimes  when  men  are  obsessed  with 
the  idea  that  when  they  open  their  mouths  words 
of  wisdom  rush  out,  and  that  all  that  is  necessary 
in  the  trial  of  a  case  is  to  make  a  wonderful  argu- 
ment, a  great  many  of  them  fail,  in  my  judgment, 
for  those  reasons;  because  they  rely  too  much  upon 
their  oratory,  they  pay  little  attention  to  the  facts 
in  the  case;  and,  after  all,  I  believe  that  courts  and 

301 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

juries  are  influenced,  not  by  oratory,  but  by  hard 
facts  sworn  to  by  witnesses.  That  is  why  I  have 
paid  more  attention  to  the  preparation  of  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case  than  I  have  to  writing  a  closing 
speech. 

Now,  let  us  see  if  there  is  any  other  evidence  in 
this  case.  Among  the  letters  introduced  in  evidence 
we  find  one  from  Allen  M.  Loeb.  Allen  Loeb  is  the 
generalissimo  of  the  defense;  he  is  the  one  who  is 
advising  young  Loeb  whether  or  not  he  ought  to  tell 
the  doctors  this,  or  whether  he  ought  to  tell  the 
lawyers  that.  This  letter  was  mailed  May  19th  at 
5.30  P.M.,  1924,  and  probably  was  received  by 
Richard  Loeb  the  day  of  the  murder;  marked 
"  Personal," 

Dear  Dick:  I  wanted  to  send  this  letter  to  you  so 
there  would  be  no  possible  chance  of  Dad  seeing  it. 
Glad  to  hear  about  Sammy  Schmaltz,  but  could  that 
amount  have  been  possibly  reversed?  If  so,  you  are  all 
wrong  in  your  gambling ;  and  even  so,  you  must  be  shoot- 
ing a  little  too  high.  Did  you  get  cash,  or  did  he  pay  on 
an  I.  O.  U.,  I  suppose?     Best  love, 

Allen. 

"  Could  that  amount  have  been  possibly  re- 
versed? "    Did  you  really  win  or  did  he? 

Another  letter  from  one  of  his  companions,  and 
it  is  fair  to  assume  that  he  is  a  wealthy  man,  or  the 
son  of  a  wealthy  man.  It  is  written  on  the  station- 
ery of  Robert  L.  Leopold,  530  Thompson  Street, 
Ann  Arbor,  Michigan,  and  is  as  follows: 

302 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Dear  Dick:  Just  a  line,  as  I  am  awfully  busy,  and  I  am 
coming  to  you  for  help.  I  have  an  exam  in  history,  17, 
and  know  nothing  about  it.  Furthermore,  my  notes  are 
no  good.  You  said  last  semester  that  you  would  let  me 
take  your  notes  in  the  course.  Please  send  them  to  me 
right  away  if  you  can.  My  exam  is  next  Friday  and  I 
must  study.  Please  drop  me  a  line  and  let  me  know, 
so  I  may  know  whether  to  plan  on  them  or  not.  I  am 
damn  sorry  that  we  couldn't  see  each  other  while  I  was 

home,  but  you  are  always  so busy.    I  guess  I 

am,  too,  while  home.  But  I  always  feel  as  though  I  am 
intruding  when  you  guys  are  gambling  because  I  don't 
gamble  that  high.  At  any  rate  better  luck  next  time 
when  home. 

Thanks  in  advance  for  your  trouble, 

Sincerely, 

Bobby, 

It  is  in  evidence  in  this  case,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  both  of  these  defendants  had  a  bank  account. 
We  put  a  witness  on  the  stand,  an  employe  of  Sears, 
Roebuck,  who  testified  that  from  time  to  time  she 
gave  checks  to  the  defendant  Loeb  here.  She  told 
me  about  two  checks  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars;  I  am  not  quite  certain  about  the  date  and  I 
want  to  be  accurate. 

His  allowance  was  $250  a  month,  so  they  say. 
The  Charlevoix  Bank  statement  shows  that  he  de- 
posited on  March  15,  1923,  $141.55;  March  25, 
$125.00;  May  16,  $345.00;  May  31,  $300.00.  All 
this  was  in  1923.  June  28,  $683.00;  July,  $171.40; 
July  13,  $259.00;  July  16,  $108.00;  July  21,  $50.00; 

303 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

August  27,  $155.00;  August  28,  $175.00;  Septem- 
ber 8,  $300.00;  September  19,  $302.75. 

Where  did  he  get  it?  These  are  not  checks  for 
$250.00  from  Sears,  Roebuck. 

Then  he  had  another  account  at  the  Hyde  Park 
State  Bank.  It  shows  as  follows  on  deposits:  Oc- 
tober I,  1923,  $485.00;  October  16,  $50.00; 
November  i,  $444.50;  November  5,  $100.00;  No- 
vember 16,  $100.00;  November  19,  $730.00;  No- 
vember 28,  $175.00. 

Business  was  good  that  month.  December  24, 
$400.00;  February  6,  $425.00. 

That  is  this  year.  February  14,  $230.00;  March 
14,  $137.00;  April  16,  $350.00;  April  25,  $100.00; 
May  15,  $536.51.  This  was  the  week  before  the 
murder  and  where  did  he  get  it?  April  16,  $350.00; 
April  25,  $100.00.  That  is  1924.  Where  did  he 
get  it? 

Mr.  Darrow:  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  those 
checks  were  from  one  bank  to  the  other? 

Mr.  Crowe:  I  don't  know,  Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow:  It  might  be  well  to  look  into  it. 

Mr.  Crowe:  He  didn't  get  it  from  his  father  in 
those  amounts  and  at  those  times.  Would  A,  B,  C 
and  D  explain  it  or  was  it  won  in  gambling? 

There  has  been  testimony  here  that  he  had 
Liberty  bonds,  and  had  not  clipped  the  coupons 
from  them  for  two  or  three  years.  Well,  if  they 
were  the  proceeds  of  a  robbery,  that  was  an  act  of 
wisdom  and  discretion. 

304 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  in  support  of  our  con- 
tention that  the  motive  in  this  case  was,  first, 
money;  that  the  original  crime  planned  was  the 
crime  of  kidnaping;  that  murder  was  later  decided 
upon  in  order  to  protect  them  from  arrests  and 
punishment,  I  do  not  intend  to  take  up  your  Honor's 
time  by  reviewing  all  the  evidence  independently  of 
the  statements  made  by  these  defendants  to  their 
doctors  that  I  have  read  to  you  from  the  Bowman- 
Hulbert  report,  but  I  will  direct  your  Honor's  at- 
tention to  the  "  uncomfortable  afternoons  "  that  they 
spent  along  the  Illinois  Central  tracks,  the  number 
of  times  they  threw  a  pad  of  paper  from  the  car  to 
see  where  the  money  would  light,  I  will  direct  your 
attention  again  to  the  ransom  letter:  "  Secure  before 
noon  today  $10,000.  This  money  must  be  com- 
posed entirely  of  old  bills." 

If  they  merely  wanted  to  get  the  money  and  did 
not  want  to  use  it,  what  difference  whether  the  bills 
were  old ;  what  difference  whether  they  were  marked 
or  unmarked  if  they  did  not  intend  to  spend  them? 

As  a  final  word  of  warning:  "This  is  a  strictly 
commercial  proposition."  All  the  way  through,  if 
your  Honor  please,  all  the  way  through  this  most 
unusual  crime  runs  money,  money,  money.  And 
when  it  is  not  money  it  is  blood.  I  think  that  we 
have  clearly  established  the  real  motive  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Darrow  relies  upon  the  facts,  first,  he  says 
there  was  no  motive,  second,  upon  the  youth  of  the 
defendants,  and,  third,  upon  their  mental  condition. 

30s 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

I  think  I  have  demonstrated  beyond  doubt  that 
the  controlling  motive  in  this  case  was  money, 
$10,000  and  as  much  more  as  they  could  get  after- 
wards. 

Now,  how  about  their  health?  Leopold  has  a  cal- 
cified pineal  gland.  Dr.  Woodyatt  said  that  did  not 
mean  anything.  Nobody  knows,  and  nobody  has 
testified  on  behalf  of  the  defense  that  it  did  mean 
anything.  Glands,  they  tell  us,  do  not  generally 
calcify  until  you  are  about  thirty  years  of  age. 
Now,  some  people  develop  earlier  in  life  than  others. 
I  believe,  in  Africa,  women  are  matured  at  nine 
years  of  age  and  bear  children  at  nine  or  ten  years 
of  age.  Leopold  has  developed  a  little  earlier  than 
the  average  man.  He  has  developed  sexually  and 
mentally  and  if  it  means  anything  at  all  it  means 
that  he  has  the  intellect  and  brain  and  mind  of  a 
man  thirty  years  of  age  and  that  is  all. 

Doctors  Hulbert  and  Bowman  said  there  was  not 
anything  pathological  about  Loeb  except  the  minus 
17  on  his  basal  metabolism.  And  every  doctor  who 
took  the  stand  said  that  that  was  within  the  range 
of  normality. 

Why,  your  Honor  can  look  at  them.  You 
have  looked  at  them.  You  have  observed  them. 
There  is  nothing  the  matter  with  them  physically. 
There  is  nothing  the  matter  with  them  mentally.  The 
only  fault  is  the  trouble  with  their  moral  sense,  and 
that  is  not  a  defense  in  a  criminal  case. 

Your  Honor,  Conners,  22  years  of  age,  a  Cairo 

306 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

negro,  was  sentenced  July  31  for  a  crime  of  murder 
on  a  plea  of  guilty. 

I  submit,  if  we  can  take  the  flower  of  American 
manhood,  take  the  boys  at  18  years  of  age  and  send 
them  to  their  death  in  the  front  line  trenches  of 
France  in  defense  of  our  laws,  we  have  an  equal 
right  to  take  men  19  years  of  age  and  take  their 
lives  for  violating  those  laws  that  these  boys  gave 
up  their  lives  to  defend.  Ah,  many  a  boy  18  years 
of  age  lies  beneath  the  poppies  in  Flanders  fields 
who  died  to  defend  the  laws  of  this  country. 

We  might  direct  your  Honor's  attention  to  what 
is  going  on  over  this  land  right  at  this  time  while 
this  case  is  on  trial.  Alexander  Bujec,  19,  must  die 
in  the  electric  chair  October  17,  for  the  murder  of 
his  13-year-old  cousin  in  Akron,  Ohio.  He  was 
sentenced  August  20. 

Mr.  Darrow  has  referred  in  the  case  to  hanging. 
Mr.  Darrow  is  a  student  of  criminology;  he  has 
written  a  book  on  it  and  he  says  the  criminal  age, 
the  time  when  crimes  are  committed,  is  between  the 
ages  of  17  and  24.  And  your  Honor  and  I  know 
that  the  average  criminal  age  is  22.  If  we  are 
going  to  punish  crime  and  by  the  punishment  stop 
it,  and  the  criminal  age  is  between  17  and  24,  how 
can  we  punish  it  if  the  age  is  a  defense? 

Mr.  Darrow  criticised  Mr.  Marshall  for  his 
quotations  from  Blackstone,  and  seemed  to  be  under 
the  impression  that  we  were  trying  to  try  this  case 
under  the  ancient  British  law.    We  are  trying  this 

307 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

case,  if  your  Honor  please,  under  the  statutes  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  in  the  year  1924.  The  statute  that 
your  Honor  is  bound  to  enforce  in  this  case,  and 
the  statute  under  which  we  are  trying  these  defend- 
ants, provides  that  from  14  years  of  age  up  the 
law  presumes  that  one  has  the  capacity  to  commit 
a  crime  and  is  entirely  responsible  for  it. 

Let  us  see  at  what  age  some  of  these  men  have 
been  hanged.  Buff  Higgins  was  hanged  at  the  age 
of  23.  Butch  Lyons  was  25.  Henry  Foster,  24. 
Albert  C.  Fields,  24.  Windreth,  29.  Mannow,  27. 
Dan  McCarty,  27.  William  T.  Powers,  23.  Chris 
Murray,  28.  John  Drugan,  22.  Robert  Howard, 
30.  Louis  Pesant,  sentenced  on  a  plea  of  guilty 
April  15,  1904,  by  Judge  Kernsten,  was  23.  Peter 
Neidermeyer,  23.  Gustave  Marks,  21.  Harvey 
Van  Dine,  21. 

These  were  not  the  poor  sons  of  multimillion- 
aires; these  were  the  sons  of  poor  men,  who  had  no 
advantages  in  life,  men  who  had  no  education,  men 
who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  gutter  and  the 
slums. 

Richard  Ivens,  24.  Andrew  Williams,  22. 
Thomas  Jennings,  28.  Thomas  Schultz,  19.  Frank 
Shiblewski,  22,  and  his  brother  hanged  the  same 
day.  Ewald,  23.  Smith,  27.  Lundgren,  25.  Den- 
nis Anderson,  21.  Lloyd  Bopp,  23.  Albert  Johnson, 
25.  Earl  Dear,  26.  Jack  O'Brien,  22.  Mills,  21. 
Champion,  22.    Zander,  22. 

Haensel,  a  man  who  fought  for  his  country,  who 

308 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

was  syphilitic,  who  was  hit  in  the  service  of  his 
country  in  the  head  by  a  chain  weighing  a  thou- 
sand pounds,  and  who  was  discharged  from  further 
service  physically  unfit,  was  hanged  in  Cook  County 
at  the  age  of  27.  The  little  songbird  from  Italy, 
Viani,  17.  Brislane,  27.  Sam  Ferrari,  26.  Oscar 
McDavit,  a  colored  man  who  thought  that  the  Lord 
had  appointed  him  to  lead  his  race  back  to  Africa, 
23.  George  Brown,  29.  Antonio  Lopez,  26.  Harry 
Ward,  25.  Carl  Wanderer,  25.  Ligregni,  27. 
Harvey  Church,  23.    Pastoni,  26. 

Dalton,  sentenced  by  your  Honor,  a  colored  boy, 
without  any  of  the  advantages  that  these  men  had, 
whose  ancestors  were  slaves,  only  two  or  three 
generations  removed  from  savagery  in  Africa,  and 
yet  he  paid  the  penalty  for  the  violation  of  the 
laws. 

Walter  Krauser,  sitting  in  the  county  jail,  mark- 
ing off  the  days  between  now  and  the  day  he 
hangs,  21.  Bernard  Grant,  sitting  in  the  county 
jail,  waiting  for  October  17,  when  he  will  pay  the 
penalty  upon  the  gallows. 

Oh,  but  Mr.  Darrow  says  there  are  only  four  men 
who  have  been  hanged  on  pleas  in  Cook  County. 

Now,  your  Honor  and  I  are  familiar  enough  with 
the  practice  over  here  not  to  be  fooled  by  that. 
What  happens  when  a  man  gets  a  guilty  client  and 
there  is  no  defense?  He  generally  goes  to  the  State's 
Attorney,  and  he  says,  "  If  you  will  waive  the  death 
penalty  I  will  plead  guilty."     If  there  are  in  the 

309 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

nature  of  the  case  any  mitigating  circumstances  the 
State's  Attorney  says:  "  Yes,  we  will  waive  the  death 
penalty.  Let's  go  upstairs  and  plead  him  guilty, 
and  I  will  recommend  life." 

But  if  the  case  is  of  such  a  nature  that  the  State's 
Attorney  cannot  in  conscience  and  in  law  waive  the 
extreme  penalty,  he  says:  "No,  that  man  has  got 
to  go  to  a  jury." 

The  reason  that  courts  do  not  hang  any  oftener 
than  they  do  is  because  hanging  cases  always  go  to 
juries.  Where  the  attorney  cannot  make  an  agree- 
ment in  advance,  he  says:  "  Well,  then,  I  am  going 
to  take  a  chance  with  12  men.  They  can't  do  any 
worse  than  the  court  can  do  on  a  plea,  and  I  am 
going  to  give  my  client  a  run  for  his  money." 

Now,  your  Honor  and  I  know  that  that  is  the 
case,  and  Mr.  Darrow  knows  it  is  the  case,  and 
everybody  who  is  familiar  with  procedure  in  the 
Criminal  Court  knows  it  is  the  case.  It  is  not  be- 
cause there  is  one  law  for  the  judge  and  another 
law  for  the  jury.  It  is  not  because  juries  must  exe- 
cute the  law  to  the  uppermost,  and  the  court  has 
a  right  to  sit  as  a  friendly  father. 

That  being  the  situation,  are  we  going  to  tell  the 
criminal  world,  and  Mr.  Darrow  says  the  criminal 
world  is  between  17  and  24,  and  the  average  is  22, 
the  age  at  which  murders  are  committed,  crimes  of 
violence  are  committed,  are  we  going  to  tell  them 
that  the  new  law  introduced  into  the  statutes  of 
Illinois  by  Clarence  Darrow  and  approved  by  the 

310 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Chief  Justice  of  the  Criminal  Court  makes  it  per- 
fectly safe  for  them  to  murder,  or  are  we  going  to 
tell  them  that  the  law  will  be  vigorously  enforced? 
The  law,  if  your  Honor  please,  is  made  to  protect 
the  innocent,  and  it  is  made  to  protect  the  innocent 
by  punishing  the  guilty  and  in  no  other  way  can  we 
protect  the  innocent  or  protect  society. 

I  think,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  have  now  covered 
the  three  defenses  set  forth  by  Mr.  Darrow,  their 
age,  lack  of  motive,  and  physical  and  mental  con- 
dition. 

When  we  get  all  through,  Mr.  Darrow  says  that 
your  Honor  ought  to  be  merciful  and,  finally,  and 
that  is  his  concluding  defense,  he  appeals  to  your 
heart  and  your  sympathy  and  not  to  your  mind  or 
your  conscience. 

When  I  was  listening  to  Mr.  Darrow  plead  for 
sympathy  for  these  two  men  who  showed  no 
sympathy,  it  reminded  me  of  a  story  of  Abraham 
Lincoln's  about  a  young  boy  about  their  age  whose 
parents  were  wealthy  and  he  murdered  both  of  them. 
He  was  an  only  child  and  he  did  it  so  that  he  might 
inherit  their  money.  His  crime  was  discovered  the 
same  as  this  crime  has  been  discovered,  and  the 
court  asked  him  for  any  reason  he  might  have  why 
sentence  of  death  should  not  be  passed  upon  him 
and  he  promptly  replied  that  he  hoped  the  court 
would  be  lenient  to  a  poor  orphan.  Robert  Franks 
had  a  right  to  live.  He  had  a  right  to  the  society 
of  his  family  and  his  friends  and  they  had  a  right 

311 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  his  society.  These  two  young  law  students  of 
superior  intelligence,  with  more  intelligence  than 
they  have  heart,  decided  that  he  must  die.  He  was 
only  14.  These  two  law  students  knew  under  the 
law  if  you  had  a  right  to  take  a  life  you  had  a  right 
to  take  it  at  14,  and  they  thought  they  had  a  right 
to  take  his  life,  and  they  proceeded  to  take  it. 

Mr.  Darrow  quoted  considerable  poetry  to  you, 
and  I  would  like  again  to  be  indulged  while  I  read 
a  little  prose.  This  is  from  an  address  delivered 
by  Clarence  Darrow  to  the  prisoners  in  the  county 
jail,  if  your  Honor  please: 

Crime  and  Criminals.  If  I  looked  at  jails  and  crime 
and  prisoners  in  the  way  the  ordinary  person  does,  I 
should  not  speak  on  this  subject  to  you.  The  reason  I 
talk  to  you  on  the  question  of  crime,  its  cause  and  cure, 
is  because  I  really  do  not  believe  in  the  least  in  crime. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  crime,  as  the  word  is  gener- 
ally understood.  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  sort 
of  distinction  between  the  real  moral  condition  in  and 
out  of  jail.  One  is  just  as  good  as  the  other.  The  peo- 
ple here  can  no  more  help  being  here  than  the  people 
outside  can  avoid  being  outside.  I  do  not  believe  people 
are  in  jail  because  they  deserve  to  be.  They  are  in  jail 
simply  because  they  cannot  avoid  it,  on  account  of  cir- 
cumstances which  are  entirely  beyond  their  control,  and 
for  which  they  are  in  no  way  responsible.  I  suppose  a 
great  many  people  on  the  outside  would  say  I  was  doing 
you  harm,  if  they  should  hear  what  I  have  to  say  to  you 
this  afternoon;  but  you  cannot  be  hurt  a  great  deal, 
anyway,  so  it  will  not  matter.  The  good  people  outside 
would  say  that  I  was  really  teaching  you  things  that  are 
calculated  to  injure  society;  but  it  is  worth  while,  now 

312 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

and  then,  to  hear  something  different  from  what  you 
ordinarily  get  from  preachers  and  the  like.  They  will 
tell  you  that  you  should  be  good,  and  then  you  will  be 
rich  and  happy.  Of  course,  we  know  that  people  don't 
get  rich  by  being  good;  and  that  is  the  reason  why  so 
many  of  you  people  try  to  get  rich  some  other  way; 
only  you  don't  understand  how  to  do  it  quite  as  well  as 
the  fellow  outside. 

There  are  people  who  think  that  everything  in  this 
world  is  an  accident;  but  really  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
an  accident.  A  great  many  persons  feel  that  many  of  the 
people  in  jail  ought  to  be  there,  and  many  of  those  out- 
side ought  to  be  in.  I  think  none  of  them  ought  to  be 
here.  There  ought  to  be  no  jails;  and  if  it  were  not 
for  the  fact  that  the  people  on  the  outside  are  so  grasping 
and  heartless  in  their  dealing  with  the  people  on  the 
inside,  there  would  be  no  such  institutions  as  jails. 

When  I  ride  on  the  street  cars,  I  am  held  up;  I  pay 
five  cents  a  ride  for  what  is  worth  two  and  a  half  cents, 
simply  because  a  body  of  men  have  bribed  the  City 
Council  and  the  Legislature  so  that  all  the  rest  of  us  have 
to  pay  tribute  to  them.  If  I  don't  want  to  fall  into  the 
clutches  of  the  gas  trust,  and  choose  to  burn  oil  instead 
of  gas,  then  good  Mr.  Rockefeller  holds  me  up. 

Let  me  see  whether  there  is  any  connection  between 
the  crime  of  the  respectable  classes  and  your  presence  in 
the  jail.  Many  of  you  I  believe  are  in  jail  because  you 
have  really  committed  burglary;  many  of  you  because 
you  have  stolen  something  within  the  meaning  of  the  law, 
you  have  taken  some  other  person's  property.  Some  of 
you  may  have  entered  a  store  and  carried  off  a  pair  of 
shoes  because  you  did  not  have  the  price.  Possibly  some 
of  you  have  committed  murder.  I  cannot  tell  what  all  of 
you  did.  There  are  a  great  many  people  here  who  have 
done  some  of  these  things,  who  really  don't  know  them- 

313 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

selves  why  they  did  them.  I  think  I  know  why  you  did 
them,  every  one  of  you.  You  did  these  things  because 
you  were  bound  to  do  them.  It  looked  to  you  at  the 
time  as  if  you  had  a  chance  to  do  them  or  not,  as  you 
saw  fit;  but  still,  after  all,  you  had  no  choice.  There  are 
many  people  who  had  some  money  in  their  pocket  and 
still  went  out  and  got  some  more  money  in  a  way  society 
forbids. 

Now,  you  may  not  yourself  see  exactly  why  it  was 
you  did  this;  but  if  you  look  at  the  question  deeply 
enough  and  carefully  enough  you  will  see  that  there  were 
circumstances  that  drove  you  to  do  exactly  the  thing 
which  you  did.  You  could  not  help  it,  any  more  than  we 
outside  can  help  taking  the  position  we  will  take.  The 
reformers  will  tell  you  to  be  good  and  you  will  be  happy; 
and  people  who  have  property  to  protect  think  the  only 
way  to  do  is  to  build  jails  and  lock  you  up  on  week  days 
and  pray  for  you  on  Sundays. 

I  think  all  this  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  right 
conduct.  Some  so-called  criminals  —  and  I  will  use  that 
word,  because  it  is  handy,  it  means  nothing  to  me;  I 
speak  of  the  criminal  who  gets  caught  as  distinguished 
from  the  criminal  who  catches  them  —  some  of  these 
so-called  criminals  are  in  jail  for  the  first  offense;  but 
nine-tenths  of  you  are  in  jail  because  you  did  not  have 
a  good  lawyer;  and  of  course  you  did  not  have  a  good 
lawyer  because  you  did  not  have  enough  money  to  pay 
a  good  lawyer.  There  is  no  very  great  danger  of  a  rich 
man  going  to  jail. 

There  is  a  bill  before  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  to 
punish  the  kidnaping  of  children  with  death.  We  have 
wise  members  of  the  Legislature.  They  know  the  gas 
trust  when  they  see  it  —  and  they  always  see  it.  It 
can  furnish  light  enough  to  be  seen.  And  this  Legisla- 
ture thinks  it  is  going  to  stop  kidnaping  of  children, 

314 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

by  making  a  law  punishing  kidnapers  of  children  to 
death. 

I  believe  that  progress  is  purely  a  question  of  the 
pleasurable  units  that  we  get  out  of  life.  The  pleasure- 
and-pain  theory  is  the  only  correct  theory  of  morality, 
and  the  only  way  of  judging  life. 

That  is  the  doctrine  of  Leopold.  That  is  the  doc- 
trine expounded  last  Sunday  in  the  press  of  Chicago 
by  Clarence  Darrow. 

I  want  to  tell  you  the  real  defense  in  this  case, 
your  Honor;  it  is  Clarence  Darrow's  dangerous  phi- 
losophy of  life.  He  said  to  your  Honor  that  he  was 
not  pleading  alone  for  these  two  young  men.  He 
said  he  was  looking  to  the  future;  that  he  was  think- 
ing of  the  ten  thousand  young  boys  who  in  the  future 
would  fill  the  chairs  his  clients  filled,  and  he  wants 
to  soften  the  law.  He  wants  them  treated,  not  with 
the  severity  that  the  law  of  his  State  prescribes,  but 
with  kindness  and  consideration. 

I  want  to  tell  your  Honor  that  it  would  be  much 
better  if  God  had  not  caused  this  crime  to  be  dis- 
closed; it  would  be  much  better  if  it  had  gone  un- 
solved, and  these  men  went  unwhipped  of  justice;  it 
would  not  have  done  near  the  harm  to  this  com- 
munity that  will  be  done  if  your  Honor,  as  Chief 
Justice  of  this  great  court,  puts  your  official  seal  of 
approval  upon  the  doctrines  of  anarchy  preached  by 
Clarence  Darrow  as  a  defense  in  this  case.  Society 
can  endure,  the  law  can  endure,  if  criminals  escape; 
but  if  a  court  such  as  this  court  should  say  that  he 

315 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

believes  in  the  doctrines  of  D arrow,  that  you  ought 
not  to  hang  when  the  law  says  you  should,  a  greater 
blow  has  been  struck  to  our  institutions  than  by  a 
hundred,  aye,  a  thousand  murders. 

There  is  another  matter,  your  Honor,  to  which  Mr. 
Darrow  referred.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  refer  to 
this  any  more  than  Mr.  Darrow  did,  but  he  referred 
to  it  and  it  is  in  evidence.  Mr.  Darrow  asked  your 
Honor  to  believe  that  Gortland  lied  in  his  testimony 
about  a  "  friendly  judge." 

On  June  lo,  1924,  in  the  Chicago  Herald  and 
Examiner  —  that  was  before  this  case  had  been  as- 
signed to  anybody,  that  was  when  Darrow  was  an- 
nouncing, and  he  did  announce  in  this  same  article, 
that  they  were  going  to  plead  not  guilty  —  there  was 
an  article  written  by  Mr.  Slattery,  sitting  back 
there,  in  which  it  was  said :  "  The  friendly-judge 
resort  suggested  for  the  defense  will  be  of  no  avail. 
It  was  mentioned  as  a  possibility  that  a  plea  of 
guilty  might  be  entered,  on  the  understanding  it 
would  result  in  life  sentences.  If  this  becomes  an 
absolute  probability,  Crowe  announced  that  he  will 
nolle  prosse  the  case  and  re-indict  the  slayers." 

Did  Gortland  lie?  He  gave  the  name  of  witness 
after  witness  that  he  told  the  story  to,  as  he  told  it 
to  Slattery,  before  the  case  was  even  assigned.  He 
says  that  was  told  to  him  by  Leopold.  I  don't  know 
whether  your  Honor  believes  that  officer  or  not;  but 
I  want  to  tell  you,  if  you  have  observed  these  two 
defendants  during  the  trial,  if  you  have  observed 

316 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

the  conduct  of  their  attorneys  and  their  families  — 
with  one  honorable  exception,  and  that  is  the  old 
man  who  sits  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  who  is 
entitled  to  the  sympathy  of  everybody,  old  Mr. 
Leopold  —  with  that  one  honorable  exception, 
everybody  connected  with  the  case  has  laughed  and 
sneered  and  jeered;  and  if  the  defendant  Leopold 
did  not  say  that  he  would  plead  guilty  before  a 
friendly  judge,  his  actions  demonstrate  that  he 
thinks  he  has  got  one. 

You  have,  your  Honor,  listened  with  a  great  deal 
of  patience  and  kindness  and  consideration  to  the 
State  and  the  defense.  I  am  not  going  to  trespass 
unduly  upon  your  Honor's  time,  and  I  am  going  to 
close  for  the  State.  I  believe  that  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances proved  in  this  case  demonstrate  that  a 
crime  has  been  committed  by  these  two  defendants, 
and  that  no  other  punishment  than  the  extreme 
penalty  of  the  law  will  fit  it;  and  I  leave  the  case 
with  you  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  I 
ask  your  Honor  in  the  language  of  Holy  Writ  to 
"  Execute  justice  and  righteousness  in  the  land." 


Judge  Caverly  took  exception  to  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Crowe  relative  to  the  "  friendly  judge "  suggestion,  "  as 
being  a  cowardly  and  dastardly  assault  upon  the  integrity 
of  this  court." 

Mr.  Crowe:  It  was  not  so  intended,  your  Honor 

The  Court:  And  it  could  not  have  been  used  for  any  other 
purpose  except  to  incite  the  mob  and  to  try  and  intimidate 
this  court.    It  will  be  stricken  from  the  record. 

Mr.  Crowe:  If  your  Honor  please,  the  State's  Attorney  had 

no  such  intention 

317 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 


The  Court:  We  will  go  on 

Mr.  Crowe:  I  merely  want  to  put  my  personal  feelings 
plainly  before  the  court.  It  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
State's  Attorney 

The  Court:  The  State's  Attorney  knew  that  would  be 
heralded  all  through  this  country  and  all  over  this  world;  and 
he  knows  the  court  hadn't  an  opportunity  except  to  do  what 
he  did.  It  was  not  the  proper  thing  to  say.  This  court  will 
not  be  intimidated  by  anybody  at  any  time  or  place  so  long 
as  he  occupies  this  position. 

The  court  then  took  the  case  under  advisement,  remarking 
that  it  had  been  a  record  one  for  speed,  due  to  the  "  able 
manner  in  which  the  State's  Attorney  investigated  and  pre- 
pared his  case  for  trial." 

On  Sept.  10  the  decision  was  announced,  both  defendants 
being  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  for  life. 

In  connection  with  the  formal  sentences  the  court  rendered 
the  following  opinion: 

In  view  of  the  profound  and  unusual  interest  that  this 
case  has  aroused  not  only  in  this  community  but  in  the  entire 
country  and  even  beyond  its  boundaries,  the  court  feels  it 
his  duty  to  state  the  reasons  which  have  led  him  to  the  de- 
termination he  has  reached. 

It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  that  pleas  of  guilty  are 
entered  in  criminal  cases,  but  almost  without  exception  in 
the  past  such  pleas  have  been  the  result  of  a  virtual  agree- 
ment between  the  defendant  and  the  State's  Attorney 
whereby,  in  consideration  of  the  plea,  the  State's  Attorney 
consents  to  recommend  to  the  court  a  sentence  deemed  ap- 
propriate by  him,  and,  in  the  absence  of  special  reasons  to 
the  contrary,  it  is  the  practice  of  the  court  to  follow  such 
recommendations. 

In  the  present  case  the  situation  is  a  different  one.  A 
plea  of  guilty  has  been  entered  by  the  defense  without  a 
previous  understanding  with  the  prosecution  and  without  any 
knowledge  whatever  on  its  part.  Moreover,  the  plea  of  guilty 
did  not  in  this  particular  case,  as  it  usually  does,  render  the 
task  of  the  prosecution  easier  by  substituting  admission  of 
guilt  for  a  possibly  difficult  and  uncertain  chain  of  proof. 

318 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Here  the  State  was  in  possession  not  only  of  the  essential, 
substantiating  facts  but  also  of  voluntary  confessions  on  the 
part  of  the  defendants.  The  plea  of  guilty,  therefore,  does 
not  make  a  special  case  in  favor  of  the  defendants. 

Since  both  of  the  cases,  that,  namely  of  murder  and  that 
of  kidnaping  for  ransom,  were  of  a  character  which  invested 
the  court  with  discretion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  punishment, 
it  became  his  duty  under  the  statute  to  examine  witnesses  as 
to  the  aggravation  and  mitigation  of  the  offense.  This  duty 
has  been  fully  met.  By  consent  of  counsel  for  the  State 
and  for  the  defendants,  the  testimony  in  the  murder  case  has 
been  accepted  as  equally  applicable  to  the  case  of  kidnaping 
for  ransom.  In  addition,  a  prima  facie  case  was  made  out 
for  the  kidnaping  case  as  well. 

The  testimony  introduced,  both  by  the  prosecution  and  the 
defense,  has  been  as  detailed  and  elaborate  as  though  the  case 
had  been  tried  before  a  jury.  It  has  been  given  the  widest 
publicity,  and  the  public  is  so  fully  familiar  with  all  its 
phases  that  it  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to  restate  or 
analyze  the  evidence. 

By  pleading  guilty,  the  defendants  have  admitted  legal  re- 
sponsibility for  their  acts;  the  testimony  has  satisfied  the 
court  that  the  case  is  not  one  in  which  it  would  have  been 
possible  to  set  up  successfully  the  defense  of  insanity,  as 
insanity  is  defined  and  understood  by  the  established  law  of 
this  State  for  the  purpose  of  the  administration  of  criminal 
justice. 

The  court,  however,  feels  impelled  to  dwell  briefly  on  the 
mass  of  data  produced  as  to  the  physical,  mental  and  moral 
condition  of  the  two  defendants.  They  have  been  shown  in 
essential  respects  to  be  abnormal;  had  they  been  normal  they 
would  not  have  committed  the  crime.  It  is  beyond  the 
province  of  this  court,  as  it  is  beyond  the  capacity  of  human 
science  in  its  present  state  of  development,  to  predicate  ulti- 
mate responsibility  for  human  acts. 

At  the  same  time,  the  court  is  willing  to  recognize  that  the 
careful  analysis  made  of  the  life  history  of  the  defendants 
and  of  their  present  mental,  emotional,  and  ethical  condition 
has  been  of  extreme  interest  and  is  a  valuable  contribution 

319 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

to  criminology.  And  yet  the  court  feels  strongly  that  similar 
analyses  made  of  other  persons  accused  of  crime  would  prob- 
ably reveal  similar  or  different  abnormalities.  The  value  of 
such  tests  seems  to  lie  in  their  applicability  to  crime  and 
criminals  in  general.  Since  they  concern  the  broad  questions 
of  human  responsibility  and  legal  punishment,  and  are  in  no 
wise  peculiar  to  these  individual  defendants,  they  may  be 
deserving  of  legislative  but  not  of  judicial  consideration.  For 
this  reason  the  court  is  satisfied  that  his  judgment  in  the 
present  case  cannot  be  affected  thereby. 

The  testimony  in  this  case  reveals  a  crime  of  singular 
atrocity.  It  is,  in  a  sense,  inexplicable;  but  it  is  not  thereby 
rendered  less  inhuman  or  repulsive.  It  was  deliberately 
planned  and  prepared  for  during  a  considerable  period  of 
time.  It  was  executed  with  every  feature  of  callousness  and 
cruelty. 

And  here  the  court  will  say,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
tenuating guilt,  but  merely  with  the  object  of  dispelling  a 
misapprehension  that  appears  to  have  found  lodgment  in  the 
public  mind,  that  he  is  convinced  by  conclusive  evidence  that 
there  was  no  abuse  offered  to  the  body  of  the  victim.  But 
it  did  not  need  that  element  to  make  the  crime  abhorrent  to 
every  instinct  of  humanity,  and  the  court  is  satisfied  that 
neither  in  the  act  itself,  nor  in  its  motive  or  lack  of  motive, 
nor  in  the  antecedents  of  the  offenders,  can  he  find  any 
mitigating  circumstances. 

For  both  the  crime  of  murder  and  kidnaping  for  ransom, 
the  law  prescribes  different  punishments  in  the  alternative. 

For  the  crime  of  murder,  the  statute  declares: 

"  Whoever  is  guilty  of  murder  shall  suffer  the  punishment 
of  death,  or  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  his  natural 
life,  or  for  a  term  not  less  than  fourteen  years.  If  the  ac- 
cused is  found  guilty  by  a  jury,  they  shall  fix  the  punishment 
by  their  verdict;  upon  a  plea  of  guilty,  the  punishment  shall 
be  fixed  by  the  court." 

For  the  crime  of  kidnaping  for  ransom,  the  statute  reads: 

"  Whoever  is  guilty  of  kidnaping  for  ransom  shall  suffer 
death,  or  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary 
for  life,  or  any  term  not  less  than  five  years." 

320 


The  Loeb-Leopold  Case 

Under  the  plea  of  guilty,  the  duty  of  determining  the  pun- 
ishment devolves  upon  the  court,  and  the  law  indicates  no 
rule  or  pohcy  for  the  guidance  of  his  discretion.  In  reach- 
ing his  decision  the  court  would  have  welcomed  the  counsel 
and  support  of  others.  In  some  States  the  legislature  in  its 
wisdom  has  provided  for  a  bench  of  three  judges  to  deter- 
mine the  penalty  in  cases  such  as  this.  Nevertheless,  the 
court  is  wiUing  to  meet  his  responsibilities.  It  would  have 
been  the  path  of  least  resistance  to  impose  the  extreme 
penalty  of  the  law.  In  choosing  imprisonment  instead  of 
death  the  court  is  moved  chiefly  by  the  consideration  of  the 
age  of  the  defendants,  boys  of  i8  and  19  years.  It  is  not 
for  the  court  to  say  that  he  will  not  in  any  case  enforce 
capital  punishment  as  an  alternative,  but  the  court  believes 
that  it  is  within  his  province  to  decline  to  impose  the  sentence 
of  death  on  persons  who  are  not  of  full  age. 

This  determination  appears  to  be  in  accordance  with  the 
progress  of  criminal  law  all  over  the  world  and  with  the  dic- 
tates of  enlightened  humanity.  More  than  that,  it  seems 
to  be  in  accordance  with  the  precedents  hitherto  observed 
in  this  State.  The  records  of  Illinois  show  only  two  cases 
of  minors  who  were  put  to  death  by  legal  process  —  to  which 
number  the  court  does  not  feel  inclined  to  make  an  addi- 
tion. 

Life  imprisonment  may  not,  at  the  moment,  strike  the 
public  imagination  as  forcibly  as  would  death  by  hanging; 
but  to  the  offenders,  particularly  of  the  type  they  are,  the 
prolonged  suffering  of  years  of  confinement  may  well  be  the 
severer  form  of  retribution  and  expiation. 

The  court  feels  it  proper  to  add  a  final  word  concerning  the 
effect  of  the  parole  law  upon  the  punishment  of  these  de- 
fendants. In  the  case  of  such  atrocious  crimes  it  is  entirely 
within  the  discretion  of  the  department  of  public  welfare 
never  to  admit  these  defendants  to  parole.  To  such  a  policy 
the  court  urges  them  strictly  to  adhere.  If  this  course  is 
persevered  in  the  punishment  of  these  defendants  will  both 
satisfy  the  ends  of  justice  and  safeguard  the  interests  of 
society. 


321 


W!l  I  ARD  c^cWiLLARD 


